60% of law school legal aid clinics have not assisted any lawyer in any case: Supreme Court report

NEW DELHI: Over 60% of legal aid clinics in law schools across India have never assisted any lawyer in any court case, a report by the Centre for Research and Planning of the Supreme Court has found.

The report found that none of the legal aid clinics have practising lawyers involved in its supervision, as mandated by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) regulations and the Bar Council of India (BCI). It also noted that none of the legal aid clinics have established any “clear rules and procedures” for including students from diverse backgrounds.

Additionally, the report cites a lack of funds and incentives for the “dormant functioning” of the legal aid cells in law schools.

Under the NALSA regulations, every law school in India is required to establish a legal aid clinic to provide legal services to underprivileged and marginalised communities.

The clinics are also expected to expose law students to the practical dimensions of law.

The report, which was presented at the Rashtrapathi Bhavan on November 6, is based on a questionnaire that was circulated among 125 law universities and colleges, of which 83 participated in the survey. As per the survey, of these 83 respondents,

• 47 are government law colleges or universities
• 31 colleges are private
• 5 colleges are semi-private

Law College: Few social justice initiatives

According to the report, 50 out of 83 legal aid cells have never assisted any lawyers in actual cases while 33 law school-based legal aid cells have only remotely assisted lawyers in a court of law. The majority of the legal aid cells limited their functioning to conducting legal awareness camps.

“The majority of legal aid cells have only conducted camps for legal aid awareness. These cells provided limited advice and did not give any substantial assistance to lawyers before the court or any administrative authorities. Only 37 out of 83 cells responded that they provided drafting facilities as a means of legal assistance to lawyers in cases related to legal aid,” the report noted.

Moreover, the legal aid clinics do not include activities that impart important skills like drafting and briefing, and have very limited social justice initiatives.

The report also called it “concerning” that several law schools are not effectively implementing the rules, leading to the legal aid cells lying dormant, despite BCI regulations on the subject.

For instance, none of the legal aid clinics have practising lawyers involved in its supervision but 68 law schools claimed that their legal aid clinics were “being guided, mentored, or assisted” by advocates. The report found,

• Only 10 out of 83 cells were actively involved in prison reform initiatives
• Only 17 out of 83 legal aid cells contributed to the filing of public interest litigations (PILs)
• 24 cells do not have an empanelled lawyer or para-volunteer, nor have they engaged free services of any lawyer or alumnus

Legal-aid Cells: Lack of diversity and accessibility

The Supreme Court’s survey found that law school-based legal aid cells “do not have an inclusive diversity policy” to engage students from diverse backgrounds. The report noted that “in the Indian context, clinical legal education does not effectively engage with caste, gender, and other forms of marginalisation” and hence ensuring a comprehensive policy for diversity and inclusion is all the more necessary.

“77 cells have responded that they have members from diverse backgrounds, while 6 cells have responded that they do not have members from diverse backgrounds. However, the cells have failed to substantiate their claim in the absence of any diversity policy,” the report said.

In response to the questionnaire, one supervisor said that while the law school does have members from different backgrounds, “we don’t agree with this hypothesis that for providing legal aid, we should consider caste, religion, etc.”

In addition to this, Over one-fourth of the surveyed legal aid cells admitted that they lack accessibility facilities for disabled persons. These include structural mechanisms such as physical accessibility and accessibility to websites. The report noted that there is an “urgent need” to accelerate progress in this area.

Shortage of funds

The Supreme Court report cites the lack of funds as a major reason for the “dormant functioning” of the legal aid cells.

“Even though the clinics have identified various issues in the surrounding villages such as non-implementation of the welfare schemes, they cannot assist the villagers with the resolution due to the lack of funds…The clinics funded by the university are generally low-budgeted as legal aid clinics form one of the many initiatives that the university has to cater to,” the report noted.

Only 15 out of 83 legal aid cells stated that they have sometimes received financial assistance through donations, aid, or grants from the state government or private donors. Plus, law schools do little to motivate students or faculty to volunteer.

“The supervisors of 70 out of 83 cells are not given any incentive (for example, a stipend or an additional perk to the supervisor in the form of a bonus, increment, or consideration for promotion) for their work at a legal aid cell. Further, students in 59 legal aid cells do not get accredited academically or in terms of counting experience,” the report noted.

The report noted that the dependence on faculty members who also teach regular courses and student volunteers, who may be occupied in other academic engagements, leads to volunteer attrition and presents a challenge in maintaining consistency of service delivery.

Most of the law school-based legal aid clinicals also do not have any review system. 25 legal aid cells have not undertaken any impact assessments. 32 legal aid cells do not publish any reports of their activities in any manner.