In April, while appearing for a convict from Chhattisgarh who had filed an appeal through legal aid, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria told the Supreme Court, “The petition filed on behalf of the accused is delayed by 2,461 days.” Hansaria was referring to how his client, Kariman, who had spent 17 years in jail when the maximum sentence for his crime was seven years, had been denied something as fundamental as access to appeal against his conviction. “He spent an extra 10 years in jail because he did not know that an appeal could have been filed. That’s when I realised that there is a larger issue here,” Hansaria told The Indian Express. While directing Kariman’s release, a Supreme Court bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta appointed Hansaria as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) to evaluate if over 1.5 lakh convicts lodged in prisons across the country have legal representation. Since May, armed with a proforma drafted by Hansaria, legal aid lawyers under the supervision of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), the premier legal aid body, have met over 15,000 convicts across 18 states, all of them punished with sentences ranging from 7-10-year jail terms to life imprisonment and death. The proforma collects details to ensure every convict is aware of the constitutional right to appeal against the verdict against her/him and is not in jail for lack of representation. According to submissions filed by NALSA in the Supreme Court for the hearing on July 15, in response to its drive, 870 convicts across these 18 states agreed to file an appeal with assistance from legal aid. The court directed that the appeals be filed in these cases. However, nearly 675 convicts chose to not file appeals. In the affidavit filed before the court, advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, appearing for NALSA, said most of the 675 convicts who said no to filing appeals simply said they were “not willing/interested in preferring an appeal”. Others said they had already undergone the maximum sentence or had almost completed their terms and saw no reason to clear their names by going in for an appeal. The third highest reason among these 675 convicts was that their appeal had been rejected by the High Court and they weren’t hopeful of a favourable verdict. The affidavit mentioned “poverty” as the fourth biggest reason for inmates preferring not to appeal against their sentences. Besides, several of these 675 convicts outlined “fear that sentence may be enhanced in the Appellate court,” and a belief that “nothing favourable will happen to them in Appellate Court”, besides mental health issues, as reasons for not exercising their right to appeal. Nearly half of the 675 convicts (384) who refused to file appeals were from West Bengal. In at least four states – West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Puducherry – the number of convicts who refused to file an appeal was higher than the convicts who decided to appeal their sentences. In Arunachal Pradesh, for example, only five convicts agreed to file an appeal while 30 said no. The NALSA affidavit noted that several of these 30 convicts “were involved in multiple cases and were habitual offenders.” Several convicts have also cited a preference to hire a private lawyer as reason to refuse legal aid. “The first step is to file appeals wherever they have agreed but I am aware that there are those who have refused and their reasons need introspection and even some counselling. Preference for private lawyers means lack of confidence in legal aid lawyers and that needs to be remedied,” Hansaria said. The 675 convicts who chose not to file appeals are from across 18 states - from Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Puducherry in the south; to West Bengal, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and Meghalaya in the east; and Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and Uttarakhand in the north. Data from other big states, including Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, are yet to be compiled and submitted to the Supreme Court.
