Only 1 remand lawyer for every 3 Delhi magistrate courts: Panelist at launch of Project 39A report

There is only one remand lawyer for every three magistrate courts in Delhi, it was revealed at the launch of Project 39A's report titled Magistrates & Constitutional Protections: An ethnographic study of first production and remand in Delhi courts..The report stated that magistrates would mark the presence of remand lawyers - meant to provide free legal assistance to the accused - even when they were absent.On this point, Director - Academia of the Delhi Judicial Academy Dr Aditi Chaudhary said,"There is one remand lawyer for every three courts in Delhi at the moment. And this one remand lawyer gets ₹9,000 per month. Where you have one remand lawyer to three courts, you do not have any time when these remands would take place. It's not surprising that the researchers saw what they saw in these courts. But of course, writing in an order the presence of a remand lawyer when he is not there, is something which cannot be tolerated at all,” she said..The study was conducted by a team of eight researchers who observed remand proceedings before the national capital's magistrate courts over a three-month period. The report highlights problems with these courts, which are often the first layer of the justice system for citizens..In Saket courts, researchers observed that on the day of the semi-final of the T20 World Cup 2022, when India was to play against England, a magistrate extended the lunch break by 40 minutes, and only resumed it when India finished a rather disappointing innings. The magistrate’s distraction was apparent through the frequent checking of his phone during the morning session..Discriminatory and non-conducive atmosphere.Unless the magistrate embarks on a meaningful interaction with the accused, their family and the remand lawyers, they are unable to ensure the actual protection of the accused’s rights, the report opines.When it came to medico legal certificates (MLCs) of accused, in some instances, the magistrate did not probe the origin of injuries - inflicted by the police or otherwise - in order to ensure the accused’s well-being. “Accused are produced from police custody by police officers from the same police station investigating their case. There is no separation between the police and the accused at this stage in order to create an environment that is conducive to the accused to raise their concerns about possible police violence, that even the most sympathetic magistrate cannot overcome,” the report further highlights..The report recounts the experience of an accused who showed signs of visible injuries and even expressed his predicament, but failed to elicit any direction from the court.In another case observed at the Karkardooma courts, the accused tried to get the attention of the judge, but was hushed by the naib (court’s policeman). The accused claimed that he had spent 45 days in custody without a lawyer..Procedural compliance.The research found that most magistrates are attentive to and relatively more engaged in ensuring procedural compliance during first production hearings, as compared to subsequent remand hearings.“In addition, while magistrates did enquire into the reasons for further detention in police custody, there was little to no questioning when the accused were produced for extension of judicial custody. At first production, magistrates were particularly conscious about ensuring that the production had occurred within 24 hours of arrest — as constitutionally mandated,” it says..Heavy workload.The study found that given the heavy case load before magistrates, the first production and remand proceedings of accused were not accorded proper time.It said that first production and remand matters are heard at random, in parallel to or in between other proceedings in the court. Many times, this contributes to the absence of remand lawyers and legal representation. "The heavy workload of magistrates, and the perception of these pretrial proceedings as unimportant, might result in magistrates not treating each and every production matter before them as unique and warranting a careful inquiry into the detention and well-being,” the report states..Speaking at the report's launch, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan noted that magistrates were bound by the constitutional mandates governing arrest and remand as reflected in the Supreme Court judgments of DK Basu and Arnesh Kumar, but were "hugely overworked."“And they would not have the time perhaps to interact…May be that an accused doesn’t speak the truth, but that is where the judicial mind has to appreciate, as what they said. In another case which they (researchers) mentioned visible injuries, and the magistrate instead of taking a note of it, is suggesting to him as it were in a friendly way, ‘you move for bail elsewhere and we will see.' Then what is the purpose of this enumeration DK Basu and Arnesh Kumar? They are not without purpose because they brought all these check points into the discourse,” she said..The report calls for the display of causelists of remand cases outside courtrooms, as researchers had found the absence of the same during their visits. Dr Chaudhary said in response to this finding,"Yes, for subsequent remands, definitely there can be some kind of a communication established via WhatsApp or email between the police stations and the court. There can be a WhatsApp of the remands that would take place subsequently. This is definitely a possibility. This is a very good suggestion given by the report,” she said..At the launch, former Orissa High Court Chief Justice and Senior Advocate S Muralidhar suggested that the study be translated into other languages to reach more stakeholders.“My request is that this report should be translated in Hindi, Urdu. It should be taken to all the states, it should be translated in different languages...And may this study be replicated in every major metropolis, more importantly, every smaller court in the towns and in the villages, because it's an eye opener to all of us,” he said.He noted that the constitutional basis of the purpose of the report was essentially to test if Article 22 (protection against arrest and detention in certain cases) of the Constitution was being adhered to by the magistrates..[Read Key Conclusions]