Why does the author think that it is not possible for the legal system to remove even a few of the problems?
Directions: Read the given passage carefully and answer the question that follows.
Most social evils are an outcome or creation of poverty and the misery that comes with being poor in a country like India, at the same time it also needs to be borne in mind that the judiciary no matter however committed it may be towards uplifting the cause of the poor is ultimately bound by procedural formalities which do not take into account the misery or problems of the masses. Therefore the sufferings being so many it is not possible for the legal system to remove even a few of such problems. In keeping with the same view it can be asserted that poverty is a creation of unjust institutions and unjust society. Therefore in a country like India if you are poor you are ineffective socially as well as economically the only way that you can then be empowered is through radical revamping of the socio-economic structure. Such a radical change can only be brought about in the form of a revolution that the legal service programme only is capable of gearing. Thus the legal aid programme should be aimed at revamping the socio-economic structure by way of removing the socially unjust institutions and creating a new order based upon the ethos of human liberty, equality and dignity of mankind.
It can be said that though the system had been flagged off under the term "We the people of India" it has no longer continued in the same direction as want of procedural formalities has taken precedence over the people at the cost of which justice often suffered casualties. It must be recognised that the courts of law have merely become instruments for law’s sake and are not administering justice as such. However, the blame for the attitude of the judiciary can be placed on the colonial hangover of namely all institutional systems in the country. However, there should be faith in the Gandhian system which professed the resolution of disputes at the grass root level through village Panchayat’s.
A national legal service authority that is accountable to the parliament but protected from official control is recommended. Simplification of the legal procedure and an emphasis on conciliated settlement outside court has to be the policy of legal aid schemes. There should be a three-fold test laid down for determining eligibility: Means test - to determine people entitled to legal aid. Prima facie test - to determine whether there was a prima facie case to give legal aid or not. Reasonableness test - to see whether the defence sought by a person is ethical and moral.
In criminal proceedings guaranteeing legal aid to habitual offenders and in cases, which essentially involve private claims is not recommended. Regular arrangement for aid and advice to the under trials should to be provided. A liberalized bail policy which should not to be dependent on financial consideration should be set up. Legal services should be extended to investigation as well as post conviction stage. Legal services should also include rehabilitative services. In criminal legal aid, salaried lawyers are recommended. There should also be encouragement for payment of compensation to victims in criminal cases. Family courts should be established for women and children with women judges, this is specially required in slum areas and rural villages. Public defence council should be appointed in children’s court.
In backward areas, legal advice bureau should be established in each development block. The involvement of law students in legal aid schemes particularly for preventive legal services is recommended. Public law service should be an alternative available as against the private bar and legal services. The authority should fix the fees payable to the lawyer.