Shankar Lal Sharma vs. Rajesh Koolwal
Citation: 2025 INSC 200; SLP (C) No. 17157 of 2022
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Background
The case involved Shankar Lal Sharma, a 73-year-old litigant suffering from health issues, who pursued a long-standing dispute against Rajesh Koolwal and his company. Unable to afford legal representation, Sharma appeared in person before the Supreme Court. Recognizing the complexities of the case and the petitioner’s limited means, the Court appointed Advocate Sanchar Anand as Amicus Curiae to assist Sharma throughout the proceedings.
Proceedings and Settlement
Over two years and multiple hearings, the Amicus Curiae provided dedicated, pro bono legal assistance to Sharma, embodying the legal profession’s service ethos. The Court, seeking an amicable resolution, encouraged both parties to settle. Initially, the respondent company offered ₹10 lakhs, which was increased to ₹15 lakhs upon the Court’s suggestion. Ultimately, the Supreme Court facilitated a full and final settlement of ₹20 lakhs to be paid to Sharma by demand draft within three weeks, bringing the litigation to a close.
Court’s Observations and Directions
Access to Justice:
The Supreme Court emphasized that access to justice is a constitutional right and should not be denied due to financial constraints. The Court highlighted the vital role of the Bar in bridging the justice gap, especially for underprivileged litigants.
Duty of Advocates:
The judgment strongly reiterated that young advocates, and indeed all members of the legal profession, must volunteer to assist litigants who lack the means or awareness to engage counsel. The Court lauded the Amicus Curiae’s selfless service, noting he represented the petitioner in 14 hearings without remuneration, and expressed “appreciation and gratitude” for his efforts.
Pro Bono Ethos:
The Court called for a return to the legal profession’s roots as a service-oriented vocation, urging young lawyers to offer their services to the needy and ensure that justice is not a luxury for the privileged but a right for all.
Significance
This judgment is a landmark affirmation of the legal profession’s ethical and social obligations. It sets a precedent for the Bar’s duty to ensure access to justice, especially for litigants of limited means, and encourages pro bono work as an essential facet of legal practice. The decision also demonstrates the Supreme Court’s proactive role in facilitating fair, compassionate resolutions and upholding the true spirit of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments