Advocates should give priority to legal aid cases even though fees for other matters may be more: Bombay High Court

Litigants should be denied access to justice owing to their economic capacity, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court recently observed while pulling up an advocate on the panel of the Goa State Legal Service Authority (GSLSA) for failing to appear in a case [Pravin Naik v. Shrinivas Prabhu Desai]..Justice Mahesh Sonak noted that an advocate who was appointed from the panel of GSLSA was not quite diligent in pursuing an appeal filed by a litigant before a civil court. .The Court urged lawyers to give priority to matters under the legal aid scheme even though the fees they are paid for such matters may not be commensurate to the fees they earn in other matters. Further, the Court said,"The litigants should not get the impression that quality legal services are not provided to them merely because they are not in a position to afford the services of advocates by paying substantial fees. Access to justice can never be denied to the litigant based upon their economic capacity. Therefore greater responsibility is placed on those who appear under the legal aid scheme.".Both the litigant and his appointed advocate believed that the Presiding Officer in the case would be biased. Thus, they kept seeking adjournments, owing to which the Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal filed by the litigant in October 2019.Justice Sonak observed that whenever a matter is accepted under the legal aid scheme, the appointed advocate must diligently attend the matter. "When the matter is accepted under the Legal Aid Scheme, the appointed Advocate must diligently attend to the matter. The excuse of being engaged in some other Court should not be put forth; in any case, it should not be continuously put forth," the order stated..Further, the judge said that advocates in general, and those appointed under the legal aid scheme, should not unnecessarily involve themselves in making allegations of bias against Presiding Officers unless the situation clearly warrants it and the facts support such a course. "They must attend to the case and conduct it to the best of their ability. In a given case, where the situation genuinely requires seeking a transfer, it would no doubt be open to the advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme to advise the litigant accordingly," the judge said. With these observations, the Bench ordered restoration of the proceedings before the civil court. It also imposed costs of ₹10,000 on the appellant, to be paid to the respondents. .Advocate Swati Kamat Wagh appeared pro bono for the appellant.Advocate Varun Bhandankar, appointed under the legal aid scheme, represented the respondent. .[Read order]