Free legal aid service advocates of juvenile home shirk duty at Dongri court, practise privately
Six advocates have been appointed to provide free legal aid to inmates of the Dongri observation home in Umerkhadi under provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, but the lawyers did not visit the court for the last three months, leaving those who are unable to pay legal fees at the mercy of private advocates.
Interestingly, the name of the sixth advocate is missing from the list put up at the home, when FPJ visited the home on Saturday. Officials are also unaware of the sixth lawyer. Only five names of five advocates – Archana Rupwate, Seema Gajakosh, Sanjay Waghmare, Indumati Jagtap and Sudhakar Karghutkar – are in the list.
Dipak Chattopadhyay, a member of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Board and advocate of the Bombay High Court, said, “Six advocates have been appointed for free legal aid. However, for the past three months, the advocates have not been visiting the Dongri court. They have been irregular at the court for more than two years now. As per the Juvenile Justice Act, free legal aid should be provided to the poor juveniles across the JJ Board.”
Two to three cases for juvenile remand are heard daily at the Dongri court. Earlier, the legal aid advocates were paid Rs. 1,200 per case. Now, it has been increased to Rs. 7,000 per case.
“Private advocates earn Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 40,000 per case. The police get 50 per cent of the amount. Police stations in Mumbai city and Mumbai suburban are hand in glove in promoting private advocates. Posters of the private legal aid advocates have been put up at railway courts, police stations, juvenile observation homes and jails including Byculla jail and Arthur Road jail. The private advocates get publicity which enhances their career. They get more private cases while the poor who are genuinely in need of legal aid suffer,” Chattopadhyay alleged.
“Seventy per cent of the people are not aware of the right to free legal aid services. The police do not make them aware about their rights and instead put them in touch with the private advocates. There is a racket between the police and the private advocates. The free legal aid advocates practice privately at other courts to make good money. They are misusing their designation only to get government recognition which will help them later on to bag a good government job. These advocates are enrolled for legal aid services for three years by the Maharashtra Legal Service Authority (MLSA). The parents of the juveniles do not have to pay any money. All expenses are borne by the MLSA. However, the private advocates also illegally take money from the parents of the juveniles. They have made the Dongri juvenile home premises like a court. It is due to lack of awareness among the public who get misguided by the police,” Chattopadhyay said.
“Recently, one of the legal aid advocates Karghutkar took money illegally from one of the juvenile’s parents for which we had got him suspended, Chattopadhyay said.
“Rape survivors are also unable to get advocates to represent them in their cases. I had to arrange for three advocates for them recently,” he added.
Sorry state of affairs
When FPJ visited the juvenile home, room number 11 which is reserved for free legal aid advocates was locked. It is learnt that the chamber is opened only once in a month for the purpose of cleaning.
“An initiative should be taken by the government. The juveniles kept at the Dongri home are undertrials. The main purpose of the observation home is reformation only. So there is no requirement of any private advocate. Outside Maharashtra, private advocates are not allowed to represent juvenile undertrials at observation homes, “Chattopadhyay said.
No decorum
A woman member of the Dongri juvenile Board who does not wish to be named said, “The private advocates do not maintain decorum inside the Dongri court. On Friday, one of the private advocates was asked to behave herself since she was laughing inside the court. Instead, she misbehaved and tried to belittle me. The private advocates should abide by the prime rule that the judiciary should be respected at all times.”