Further, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi and Others MANU/SC/0001/1996 : (1995) 5 SCC 730, it has been held that:
17. ... we have to consider the combined effect of Article 21 and Article 39A of the Constitution of India. The right to free legal aid and speedy trial are guaranteed fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution of India assures 'justice, social, economic and political'. Article 39A of the Constitution provides 'equal justice' and 'free legal aid'. The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice. It means justice according to law. In a democratic polity, governed by rule of law, it should be the main concern of the State, to have a proper legal system. Article 39A mandates that the State shall provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The principles contained in Article 39A are fundamental and cast a duty on the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on the basis of equal opportunities and further mandates to provide free legal aid in any way-by legislation or otherwise, so that justice is not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The crucial words are (the obligation of the State) to provide free legal aid 'by suitable legislation or by schemes' of 'in any other way', so that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. (Emphasis supplied)....
13. Further, Article 39A of the Constitution of India provides for holistic approach in imparting justice to the litigating parties. It not only includes providing free legal aid via appointment of counsel for the litigants, but also includes ensuring that justice is not denied to litigating parties due to financial difficulties. Therefore, in the light of the legal principle laid down by this Court, the Appellant deserved waiver of court fee so that he could contest his claim on merit which involved his substantive right. The Court of sub Judge erred in rejecting the case of the Appellant due to non-payment of court fee. Hence, we set aside the findings and the decision of the Court of sub Judge and condone the delay of the Appellant in non-payment of court fee which resulted in rejection of his suit.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 10581 of 2013 (Arising of SLP (C) No. 23918 of 2012)
Decided On: 25.11.2013
Manoharan Vs. Sivarajan and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.J. Mukhopadhaya and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.
