Latest JudgementConstitution of IndiaCode of Civil Procedure, 1908The Limitation Act, 1963

Shankar Lal Sharma vs. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors., 2025

Selfless Legal Aid and Volunteering in the Legal Profession

Supreme Court of India·17 February 2025

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

17 February 2025

Judges

Justice BV Nagarathna ⦁ Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908; Limitation Act, 1963;

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Shankar Lal Sharma, filed a special leave petition (SLP) against Rajesh Koolwal and others.
The party-in-person, unable to afford a lawyer, faced difficulties in making submissions in English before the Supreme Court.
The Court appointed Advocate Sanchar Anand as amicus curiae to assist the party.
Advocate Anand attended fourteen hearings over two years, helping the litigant reach a settlement.
No fees were paid to Advocate Anand for his service, yet he dedicatedly volunteered for the case.

Whether a legal professional should volunteer their services to litigants unable to afford counsel?
Is it important for young advocates to assist indigent litigants without expecting monetary return?
Whether the legal profession should encourage providing affordable access to justice, especially in the Supreme Court?

The Court praised Advocate Sanchar Anand for providing selfless legal assistance, highlighting the importance of voluntary service in the legal field.
The Court emphasized the ethical responsibility of advocates, particularly young ones, to assist litigants who are unable to afford legal counsel.
The judgment underscored that legal professionals should help litigants in accessing justice without adding financial burden.
The Court settled the claims of the petitioner with a payment of Rs. 20 lakhs by the respondent.
As a token of appreciation, the Court directed the respondent to pay Rs. 1 lakh to Advocate Sanchar Anand for his voluntary services.

The Court held that the selfless services rendered by an advocate to a party-in-person reflect the core ethical duty of the legal profession—ensuring access to justice for all.
The Court referred to the need for legal professionals to act with responsibility and contribute to alternate dispute mechanisms, such as mediation and conciliation.
The Court noted the continuous assistance provided by Advocate Anand, who helped bring about a settlement despite the lack of financial compensation.
The Court's ruling reflected the notion that the legal profession should prioritize justice over monetary gain, fostering a culture of inclusivity and support.

The judgment serves as a reminder that legal professionals have an essential role in ensuring equitable access to justice, particularly in high courts and the Supreme Court, where litigation can be expensive.
This decision may encourage more young advocates to offer their services pro bono or on a voluntary basis, especially in cases where litigants cannot afford counsel.
The ruling may prompt further discussions on the commercialization of the legal profession and inspire reforms to make legal services more accessible.
Advocates should consider offering assistance to those in need, irrespective of financial compensation.
The judgment highlights the importance of volunteerism within the legal community to ensure that everyone, regardless of financial background, has access to justice.
The decision reinforces the idea that the legal profession should work towards reducing the barriers to entry in the justice system.