SHANKAR LAL SHARMAversusRAJESH KOOLWAL & ORS.

          [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1717 : 2025 INSC 200

                    Shankar Lal Sharma
                            v.
                   Rajesh Koolwal & Ors.
       (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17157 of 2022)
                        29 January 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
The role of advocates in taking up the responsibility of rendering
assistance to both the court as well as the litigant, particularly
those with limited means.

                            Headnotes†
Advocates – Responsibility of – Rendering assistance to
indigent litigant:
Held: Young advocates joining the bar, must volunteer to assist
the litigants who cannot engage the services of a counsel due to
lack of means or awareness whenever an opportunity presents
itself – Moreover, they should render the best legal assistance to
the litigant without any expectation in return for their professional
services – By these gestures of volunteering to represent indigent
litigants, advocates can collectively make a statement to the
society at large that the legal profession stands for the right to
have access to justice and equality before law, not just in theory
but in practice too – Such efforts of advocates, though in an
individual capacity but acting towards a common objective of
bringing an amicable quietus to the litigation, would send out
a message that counsel are not hinderances in the process of
parties reaching a mutually agreeable settlement, particularly in
labour and matrimonial matters – They can also effectively play
their parts in helping the parties end their disputes, and add
positively to the alternate dispute mechanisms like mediation
and conciliation – These are opportunities to make meaningful
contributions to the society, and as a result the legal profession
as a whole would gain the goodwill of the society in general and
indigent litigants in particular. [Para 13.3]
Constitution of India – Right to justice – Role of advocates –
Indigent litigant – Discussed.
1718                                                          [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    Constitution of India – Right to justice – Misconception needs
    to be broken:
    Held: Misconception amongst the litigant public that a hearing in this
    Court is available only to those who have the wherewithal needs to
    be broken – The duty to provide ease of access to justice rests upon
    every member of the legal profession and the requisite message
    needs to be disseminated from the portals and corridors of this
    Court in the first instance in both letter and spirit – The enduring
    service of the amicus curiae in the present case is a poignant
    step in that direction – The counsel has appeared fourteen times
    before this Court for representing the petitioner, during a period
    of two years when this matter was pending before this Court –
    The petitioner, admittedly being a man of limited means, has not
    been able to pay a penny to the counsel for his services – Yet, the
    counsel has dedicatedly appeared before this Court during these
    two years to not just represent the petitioner but also to assist
    this court in reaching a just and proper conclusion to this case.
    [Paras 14, 14.1 and 14.2]

                              Case Law Cited

    State of UP v. UP State Law Officers Association [1994] 1 SCR
    348 : AIR 1994 SC 1654 – referred to.

                                List of Acts

    Constitution of India.

                             List of Keywords

    Advocates; Indigent litigant; Right to Justice; Role of advocates;
    Amicus curiae; Legal profession; Mediation; Conciliation;
    Volunteering to represent indigent litigants.

                             Case Arising From

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
    No. 17157 of 2022

    From the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2022 of the High
    Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBSAW No. 182
    of 2019
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                       1719

              Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors.


                         Appearances for Parties
     Amicus Curiae.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Rajeev Singh, Radhakrishna S Hegde, Prakash Chandra Sharma.
     Petitioner-in-person.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Order

     This Special Leave Petition has been filed by Sri Shankar Lal
     Sharma - petitioner, who is present in-person before this Court today.
2.   Having regard to the issues raised by him in this petition, we thought
     it fit to make available the services of a legal counsel and therefore,
     by order dated 18.11.2022 this Court requested Sri Sanchar Anand,
     learned Advocate, to assist this Court as an Amicus Curiae in the
     matter.
3.   We have heard this case on several occasions.
4.   We note that the age of the petitioner is presently 73 years. When
     we suggested to the petitioner to consider a full and final settlement
     of all his claims as against the respondent-Company and have a
     closure to this litigation, he had said that he would think over the
     matter and revert.
5.   Today, learned Amicus representing the petitioner submitted that
     the petitioner will not press the Special Leave Petition on merits,
     if an appropriate lumpsum monetary settlement is made by the
     respondent-Company.
6.   Learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s) at the outset had
     submitted that there is no merit in this Special Leave Petition and
     therefore, the same may be dismissed.
7.   However, on the last few occasions, we had suggested to learned
     counsel for the respondent(s) that if the petitioner is agreeable for
     a settlement in the matter, he should get instructions regarding the
     same so as to give a quietus to the case.
8.   Learned counsel for the respondent(s) then submitted that he has
     instructions that a sum of Rupees Ten Lakhs in full and final settlement
1720                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports



     will be paid to the petitioner. However, on our persuasion, learned
     counsel for the respondent(s) also submitted that the respondent(s)
     can be persuaded to pay at the most Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only.
9.   In response to this submission, learned Amicus appearing for the
     petitioner submitted that if the matter is to be heard on merits, the
     monetary emoluments that the petitioner would receive would be a
     Crore of rupees approximately. The petitioner is giving up his claims
     on merits and therefore, this Court may consider an appropriate
     amount to be paid by way of settlement so as to give a closure to
     the litigation.
10. In the circumstances, we think that it is just and appropriate to direct
    the respondent-Company to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees
    Twenty Lakhs only) to the petitioner, which would be in full and final
    settlement of all his claims on the respondent(s). On receipt of the
    said amount, the petitioner shall not have any further claim or right
    to any other relief as against the respondent(s) herein with respect
    to the present dispute.
11. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within a period of three weeks
    from the date of availability of this order by way of Demand Draft in
    the name of the petitioner to be handed over to Sri Sanchar Anand,
    learned counsel who has assisted this Court as Amicus representing
    the petitioner herein.
12. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and the submissions
    made by the petitioner/party-in-person, the Special Leave Petition
    is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
13. Before parting, we would like to observe that the instant case has
    brought to the fore a crucial aspect of the legal profession, which
    is the role of advocates in taking up the responsibility of rendering
    assistance to both the court as well as the litigant, particularly those
    with limited means, and to collectively assist in ensuring that the
    litigant before a court has an assurance of having secured justice at
    the hands of the courts and particularly from the Apex Court.
     13.1 As also observed by a bench of this Court in the case of State
          of UP vs. UP State Law Officers Association, AIR 1994 SC
          1654, the legal profession has historically been a service-
          oriented profession and the ancestor of today’s lawyer was
          no more than a spokesman who rendered his services to
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                         1721

              Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors.


            the needy members of the society by articulating their case
            before the courts and authorities that be. The services were
            rendered without regard to the remuneration received or to
            be received. With the passage of time and the spiraling of
            litigation, advocacy has become a full-time occupation and
            most of the lawyers came to depend upon it as the sole
            source of livelihood. But amidst the rapid commercialization
            and competition which the legal profession has fallen prey to,
            it remains a rare joy to have the assistance of advocates, as
            in the present case, still holding strong the original and core
            values attached to the legal profession, which is to lend their
            noble services to an aggrieved litigant before the Court-not
            by acting as soldiers on behalf of their clients, but by merely
            being the bridges of communication and peace between
            the stakeholders in litigation, i.e., the petitioner(s) and the
            respondent(s) in a case and by rendering assistance to the
            bench, so that dispensation of justice in a court of law does
            not eventually become a zero-sum game.
     13.2 A number of times we have come across litigants before courts
          who appear in-person to prosecute or contest their own cases.
          Despite the availability of free legal aid facilities in Courts, they
          tend to take the pains of drafting their own petitions, completing
          cumbersome legal procedures and appearing before the
          Courts to deal with complex legal argumentation. While one
          of the reasons for this may be the lack of awareness about
          the availability of legal aid services, for reasons best known
          to such litigants they do not engage legal professionals.
     13.3 Young advocates joining the bar, must volunteer to assist
          the litigants who cannot engage the services of a counsel
          due to lack of means or awareness whenever an opportunity
          presents itself. Moreover, they should render the best legal
          assistance to the litigant without any expectation in return for
          their professional services. By these gestures of volunteering
          to represent indigent litigants, advocates can collectively make
          a statement to the society at large that the legal profession
          stands for the right to have access to justice and equality
          before law, not just in theory but in practice too. Such efforts
          of advocates, though in an individual capacity but acting
          towards a common objective of bringing an amicable quietus
1722                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


            to the litigation, would send out a message that counsel are
            not hinderances in the process of parties reaching a mutually
            agreeable settlement, particularly in labour and matrimonial
            matters. They can also effectively play their parts in helping
            the parties end their disputes, and add positively to the
            alternate dispute mechanisms like mediation and conciliation.
            These are opportunities to make meaningful contributions to
            the society, and as a result the legal profession as a whole
            would gain the goodwill of the society in general and indigent
            litigants in particular.
     13.4 As Prof. Karen Thalacker rightly summed up in her book ‘The
          New Lawyer’s Handbook: 101 Things They Don’t Teach You
          in Law School’ while advising young advocates to donate their
          legal skills for community purposes:
                “Serving others fills a hole in you that you might not
                even know you have. The discovery that you make
                is that even though you volunteer to show these
                organizations how important they are, the end result
                is that you get more than you ever give.”
     It is high time the aforesaid spirit is imbibed by the members of the
     bar in general and particularly the younger advocates.
14. The instant case has shed light on another contrasting facet of the
    legal practitioners before this Court. On 18.11.2022, when this Court
    observed that the petitioner was appearing in-person and was not able
    to make his submissions in English before the Court, Mr. Sanchar
    Anand, learned counsel was appointed as the Amicus Curiae in the
    matter to represent the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned counsel
    has appeared fourteen times before this Court for representing the
    petitioner, during a period of two years when this matter was pending
    before this Court. The petitioner, admittedly being a man of limited
    means, has not been able to pay a penny to the learned counsel for
    his services. The learned counsel is not even an advocate on the
    panel of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, so as to receive
    some reasonable remuneration for his time and expenses. Yet, the
    counsel has dedicatedly appeared before this Court during these two
    years to not just represent the petitioner but also to assist this court
    in reaching a just and proper conclusion to this case. Eventually,
    the learned counsel has been successful in convincing the petitioner
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                      1723

              Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors.


     to accept the suggestions made by this Court and by the learned
     counsel for the respondent, and the petitioner has been cooperative
     to rest his claim on merits in lieu of receipt of the amount of money
     being agreed to be paid by the respondent as directed above.
     14.1 What the aforesaid effort from the learned Advocate signifies is
          that access to justice before the highest court of the country is
          not bound by the shackles of lack of financial resources. Persons
          from all classes, etc. who wish to approach this court with their
          grievance must be provided with necessary assistance by the
          responsible members of the bar, without increasing the cost of
          litigation for the party or unnecessarily delaying the process.
          This is a welcome change from the trend being witnessed in
          our court rooms, where the litigants located in far corners of
          this country have to shell out humungous sums of money in
          the name of professional fees for engagement of top echelons
          of the legal profession, particularly when the matters do not
          progress on a particular day. In lieu of their expectations for
          the constitutionally guaranteed right to justice at the hands
          of this Court, they are often handed over a document that
          reads on top as ‘Record of Proceedings’ and which acts as a
          means of justifying the professional fees, without there being
          any substantial relief for the party concerned. The message
          that eventually spreads amongst the litigant public is that a
          hearing in this Court is available only to those who have the
          wherewithal and can withstand the financial pressure arising
          from their litigation apart from the uncertainty of the result and
          that the doors of justice may be inaccessible for others who
          can ill-afford to pay such high fees to lawyers.
     14.2 We must reiterate that this misconception is required to be
          broken. The duty to provide ease of access to justice rests
          upon every member of the legal profession and the requisite
          message needs to be disseminated from the portals and
          corridors of this Court in the first instance in both letter and
          spirit. The enduring service of the learned amicus curiae in
          the present case is a poignant step in that direction.
15. In light of the above observations, we express our appreciation and
    gratitude to Sri Sanchar Anand, learned Amicus, for rendering his
    services and assisting this Court on our request and by representing
1724                                                        [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     the petitioner herein on several dates and thereby bringing about a
     quietus to a long-drawn-out litigation.
16. We also express our appreciation to Sri Radhakrishna S Hegde,
    learned counsel for the respondent(s), who has responded positively
    to the suggestion made by this Court and has been able to persuade
    his clients to part with the aforesaid sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees
    Twenty lakhs only) so as to ensure that there is a closure to this
    litigation and all future claims and litigations vis-a-vis the petitioner
    herein.
17. As a token of our appreciation of the services rendered by Sri Sanchar
    Anand, we request the respondent(s) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
    (Rupees One Lakh only) to Sri Sanchar Anand, learned Amicus
    Curiae. The said amount shall also be paid expeditiously by way of
    Demand Draft.
18. We also appreciate the change of mind on the part of the petitioner,
    who is aged 73 years and who is a person of low vision and suffering
    from multiple ailments, in deciding to putting an end to this litigation
    by accepting the aforesaid offer of the respondent(s).
19. We observe that other cases arising out of the litigation between the
    petitioner and the respondent(s) herein to be concluded expeditiously
    having regard to the aforesaid order. Hence, necessary steps in that
    regard may be taken by the respective parties.
20. This Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
     Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: SLP disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan