Supreme Court Rejects NALSA Appeal Filed Sans Convict Consent

Supreme Court Rejects NALSA Appeal Filed Without Convict’s Consent

Bench Calls It “Misuse of Process of Law” and Dismisses Delayed Petition

Court Reaffirms That Legal Aid Must Respect Convict’s Choice and Consent

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 30, 2025: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed under the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) scheme without the consent of the convict. The Court, led by Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, held that filing an appeal without the convict’s knowledge or approval amounts to a misuse of the judicial process.

The case involved a convict, Kamaljit Kaur, who was sentenced by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2018. Nearly seven years later, an appeal was filed on her behalf under a NALSA programme, but the convict had never expressed any desire to challenge her conviction.

Background of the Case

The convict, Kamaljit Kaur, was convicted in 2018.
An SLP was filed in the Supreme Court after a delay of 2,298 days (over six years).
The petition was filed under the “Accessing Justice to Convicts in Prisons through Legal Services” campaign launched by NALSA.
The convict, however, had not given her consent for filing the appeal.

The Court noted that the petition was filed only because of directions issued under the NALSA programme, not because the convict herself wanted to pursue the matter.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court made several strong remarks:

On misuse of process: The Court said, “As the petitioner never expressed any desire to file a special leave petition before this Court, we are of the opinion that the filing of the petition only in view of the NALSA programme is misuse of the process of law.”
On delay: The Court found the explanation for the 2,298-day delay completely unsatisfactory.
On convict’s rights: The Court emphasized that legal aid cannot override the free will of a convict. Filing appeals without consent undermines the principle of voluntary legal representation.
On legal aid schemes: While NALSA plays a crucial role in ensuring access to justice, its programmes must be implemented responsibly and not mechanically.

Why the Court Rejected the Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal for two main reasons:

Lack of consent: The convict never authorized the filing of the appeal.
Inordinate delay: The petition was filed almost seven years after the High Court’s judgment, with no valid explanation.

The Court concluded that such practices waste judicial time and dilute the credibility of legal aid programmes.

Wider Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has important consequences for the criminal justice system and legal aid in India:

For NALSA and legal aid bodies: They must ensure that appeals are filed only with the convict’s informed consent.
For convicts: The judgment protects the autonomy of prisoners, ensuring they are not dragged into unwanted litigation.
For courts: It prevents unnecessary clogging of the judicial system with appeals that have no real backing from the parties concerned.
For legal aid lawyers: The ruling is a reminder that their duty is to assist, not to impose.

Reactions to the Judgment

Legal experts have welcomed the decision, saying it strengthens the principle of voluntariness in legal representation.
Prison rights activists argue that while legal aid is essential, it must be based on informed choice and not imposed from above.
NALSA officials are expected to review their procedures to ensure that future appeals are filed only after obtaining written consent from convicts.

The Larger Debate: Legal Aid vs. Consent

The case highlights a larger debate in India’s justice system:

Access to justice: Legal aid ensures that even the poorest and most marginalized convicts can approach higher courts.
Consent and autonomy: At the same time, convicts must have the right to decide whether to pursue an appeal.
Balance needed: The ruling shows that while legal aid is a constitutional right, it cannot override personal choice.

Similar Precedents

The Supreme Court has in the past emphasized that:

Delay in filing appeals must be explained satisfactorily, especially in criminal cases.
Legal aid lawyers must act in the best interest of their clients, not just to fulfill procedural requirements.
Consent of litigants is central to the fairness of judicial proceedings.

This ruling adds to that body of jurisprudence by clarifying that NALSA schemes cannot be misused to file appeals without consent.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s rejection of the NALSA appeal filed without the convict’s consent is a landmark ruling that reinforces the importance of consent, autonomy, and accountability in legal aid. By calling such actions a misuse of process, the Court has sent a strong message that access to justice must be meaningful, not mechanical.

This judgment will likely push NALSA and other legal aid bodies to adopt stricter safeguards, ensuring that convicts are fully informed and willing participants in their legal battles.