The Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning released a report identifying significant inefficiencies in India’s legal aid clinics across 1,662 law colleges. Key issues include inadequate faculty compensation, lack of inclusivity and training for law students, limited case assistance, and funding deficits. Proposed reforms aim to enhance legal aid effectiveness through better implementation and collaboration among clinics nationwide.
New Delhi: The Centre for Research and Planning (CRP) at the Supreme Court has published an empirical report highlighting critical gaps in the functioning of legal aid clinics across 1,662 law colleges in India. These clinics, mandated by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to uphold Article 39A of the Indian Constitution, play a vital role in providing free legal aid to those in need. However, the report reveals significant shortcomings that impede their effectiveness.
Survey Uncovers Challenges in Legal Aid Clinics
The CRP surveyed 125 law colleges and universities, with only 81 participating. The findings paint a concerning picture of underperformance:
- Faculty Remuneration and Expertise: Supervisors and clinical faculty members are not adequately compensated. No clinic has appointed a practicing lawyer for supervision, and 24 clinics have never empanelled lawyers, para-volunteers, or pro-bono professionals.
- Lack of Inclusivity: Most clinics lack standard eligibility criteria for student participation and have no procedures to ensure diversity. One clinic even argued against promoting “artificial diversity,” claiming it wouldn’t align with the clinic’s objectives.
- Inadequate Training: Law students are unprepared to handle clients due to social, cultural, and economic disconnects. The report emphasizes the need for training in client sensitization, local practices, and legal expertise to bridge this gap.
- Accessibility Issues: Many clinics lack physical accessibility, and their websites are not designed for persons with disabilities.
Limited Impact on Communities
Although all clinics engage in legal literacy and awareness programs, most lack resources to address real cases.
- Minimal Case Assistance: Around 60% of the clinics have not assisted a lawyer in any case.
- Common Cases: The majority of cases involve domestic violence, property disputes, and matrimonial issues, though some clinics have not dealt with legal disputes in court.
- Prison Reforms: Some clinics conduct research on the socio-economic backgrounds of life convicts, but student involvement is largely limited to clerical work.
Institutional Complacency and Funding Deficits
The report highlights systemic failures in complying with NALSA Regulations, 2011, and the NALSA Scheme, 2013:
- Non-Compliance: District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) are required to assign lawyers and cover expenses for legal clinics, but this is rarely followed.
- Funding Gaps: Law schools receive inadequate financial support from the University Grants Commission (UGC), affiliated universities, and legal services authorities.
- Performance Oversight: Only 58 clinics conduct periodic self-assessments, reflecting a lack of accountability.
Proposed Reforms
To address these issues, the CRP suggests a comprehensive overhaul:
- Rotating Faculty and Students: Introducing a rotating system for faculty and students to ensure continuity in operations while offering fair opportunities.
- Detailed Documentation: Maintaining detailed records of legal actions to avoid service disruptions.
- Expanding Legal Awareness: Beyond constitutional rights, clinics should focus on remedies for resolving disputes and offer ancillary services like drafting and counseling.
- Enhanced Collaboration: Sharing knowledge and collaborating among clinics nationwide could amplify their impact.
Global Perspectives and Best Practices
The report also draws comparisons with legal aid clinics in the US and Australia, where external expertise and institutional support enhance their effectiveness.
Call for Better Implementation
The findings highlight the urgent need for better implementation of existing regulations to improve infrastructure and resources at legal aid clinics. As the report states,
“Legal aid clinics are crucial for bridging the gap between law students and the community, but institutional complacency and funding gaps undermine their potential.”
Compiled by Experts
The report was authored by Anurag Bhaskar, Naveen Toppo, Pragya, Purvi Nema, and Rajesh Ranjan from the Supreme Court CRP, offering an in-depth analysis of the legal aid ecosystem in India.
With proper reforms and stronger regulatory oversight, these clinics can better fulfill their constitutional mandate to provide free legal aid to the underprivileged.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
