The Rajasthan High Court recently directed consolidation of trial in over 130 FIRs lodged against Girdhar Singh Sodha, former Chairperson of Navjeevan Credit Cooperative Society [Girdhar Singh Sodha v State of Rajasthan].

Sodha is an accused in multiple cases of cheating, criminal breach of trust, cheating and misappropriation of funds of investors. 

The cases were registered in Rajasthan and other States under various provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act. He approached the Court for consolidation of the trial.

Allowing the plea, Justice Farjand Ali said that holding judicial proceedings in various districts would be cumbersome and perhaps may end with the life of the accused.

“Multiple FIR shall be subject to investigation followed by a trial in every case in the Courts of Judicial Magistrate at the district block level as well as in Sessions divisions arising out of the same cause of action shall not solve the purpose of criminal prosecution and this trial shall be prolonged which is against the spirit of law causing injustice to the parties,” the Court said.

It added that the same would be violative of fundamental rights of both parties – accused and prosecution, especially when the substance of accusation, the accused and the nature of evidence are the same.

“A single transactional activity by the accused by forming a Society and luring the public to invest their money in it and thereby allegedly duping/ cheating/ defrauding/ swindling several person is the crux, essence, and basic substance of each of the cases lodged at the hands of different people at different areas of the State of Rajasthan,” the Court noted.

Further, the Court found  that Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) permits clubbing of only three similar criminal cases if committed within a year. It thus asked,

“What to do if the nature of the charge is the same, the accused is the same, the primary cause of action is the same, the nature of accusation in all cases is the same and they are committed within one year but the cases are more than three; there is no express provision in this regard but there is a mechanism or permissibility of clubbing/joining the different cases. This means the law recognizes clubbing or consolidation of a particular number of cases against the accused where the nature of the crime is the same, however, it limits and restricts its ambit only upto three cases if committed within one year.”

The Court added that the law is silent on how to deal with the matter where more than 250 cases in 16 different districts are registered. Answering the conundrum, the Court said the doctrine of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium – ‘wherever there is right, there is remedy’ - will apply.

Being a Constitutional Court and custodian of the law, this Court is duty-bound and rather expected to see that the accused may be prosecuted and not be persecuted without a finding of guilt, the single-judge said.

“Due to the lodging of umpteen number of cases by the state machinery, the accused has been trapped in a vicious cycle of the process of Criminal justice and without fruitful progress in any of the cases, in fact, the process has become a punishment for the accused,” the Court stated.

Taking note of the fact that there are 133 cases against the accused, who is 47 years old, and that the trial in these cases would take decades, the Court ordered consolidation of the trial in criminal cases pending against him in nearby districts.

“A bunch/group of cases of nearby district/town/city should be prepared and trial/inquiry of that group can be directed to be done at a bigger and more convenient place for all the stakeholders,” it said, while passing directions to club/consolidate the 133 cases on the basis of their nature and geography. 

The Court issued directions to various District and Sessions Judges to transfer the cases triable by magistrate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate within their jurisdiction.

Further, the Court directed that the cases registered under the BUDS Act, with other offences, shall be forwarded to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge of Jodhpur district, which shall try the cases in a consolidated manner. 

Advocate Priyanka Borana represented the petitioner.  

[Read Judgment]

The Constitution of India calls for equal access to justice for all. Yet, the reality remains starkly different. While nearly 80% of India's population qualifies for free legal aid, only 1% has availed of such services.

More concerning is that only 7.91% of undertrials have sought legal aid, while 70% of those hiring private lawyers belong to economically weaker sections. This raises a pressing question: if free legal aid is a right, why is it so underutilised?

The challenges of mandated pro bono work

In February 2024, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice proposed making pro bono work mandatory for advocates seeking benefits from Bar Council of Indian (BCI) relief funds. While this move aimed to promote legal aid, its feasibility remains uncertain.

Many litigating lawyers in India already face financial constraints. A mandatory pro bono requirement, while well-intentioned, could add to this burden, particularly for young and struggling lawyers.

Institutions like the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), which are responsible for funding and coordinating legal aid services, also face challenges and struggle with underutilisation of resources. Reports indicate that most states fail to use even 50% of allocated legal aid funds, and India's per capita legal aid expenditure stands at just ₹10.

A Supreme Court report revealed that legal aid clinics in law schools are under-equipped and without an associated practicing lawyer to assist clients seeking legal aid.

These systemic issues often leave vulnerable individuals with two options: accept inadequate legal representation or incur significant debt to hire private lawyers.

Even when legal aid services are available, accessibility remains a major challenge. India has only one legal aid clinic for every 127 villages. Many individuals, especially in rural areas, avoid filing cases altogether. Given infrastructural gaps, financial burden and legal complexities, justice is often out of reach for those who most deserve it.

Bridging the gap: A collaborative approach

Nyaaya is an organisation set up in 2016 that focuses specifically on making the laws accessible for non-lawyers. Through its Samvidhan Fellowship, it aims to bridge the gap in access to justice by collaborating with communities on the ground.

Team Lead at Nyaaya Anisha Gopi says,

"The road to better legal aid lies in collaboration. Partnerships between legal services authorities and private legal initiatives can go a long way to bridge the divide between statutory obligation and effective aid.”

The Samvidhaan Fellowship integrates legal aid with mentorship and community engagement. It partners with district-level lawyers in Karnataka and Bihar to improve access to justice.

Launched in 2022, the Fellowship collaborates with community-based organisations and state departments, including the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KLSA), the Department of Women and Child Development and the Bihar Livelihoods Promotion Society (Jeevika). Fellows are trained to educate underserved communities about their legal rights and provide pro bono legal assistance where needed.

Applauding the initiative, former KSLSA Member Secretary Jaishankar stated,

"Access to justice is the motto of legal services institutions. I am pleased that KSLSA and Nyaaya have entered into an MoU to work together to create legal awareness and ensure that the underprivileged and marginalised sections are provided quality legal services."

Real impact on the ground

What makes the Samvidhaan Fellowship unique is its dual approach: providing financial support to lawyers while ensuring mentorship from senior legal professionals. The program receives funding from Rohini Nikelani Philanthropies, along with support from lawyers like Trilegal Partner Rahul Matthan and Advocate Aditya Vikram Bhat.

Matthan said,

"While promoting projects that work in the intersection between technology, legal rights and social justice, too often we focus our efforts at justice reform on the institutions and the administration when all that’s needed is community engagement to educate citizens and empower them to exercise their rights. If we can strengthen society at the grassroots, the greater are our chances of protecting the weakest amongst us from injustice.”

Fellows benefit from guidance by experienced legal professionals, including former Supreme Court Justice BN Srikrishna, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, and Advocate Poornima Hatti in Karnataka, and former Supreme Court Justice Aftab Alam, Prof Faizan Mustafa and Senior Advocate Shama Sinha in Bihar.

This mentorship model enables district-level lawyers to improve their legal interventions, thereby enhancing the overall quality of legal aid services.

Stories of change

In Bihar's Forbesganj, Samvidhaan Fellow Mukesh worked to address a long-standing issue of missing persons under the guidance of Advocate and Prof Fr Peter Ladis. On an average, 5,000 girls go missing from the region every year, yet first information reports (FIRs) were rarely registered due to a lack of legal awareness. Mukesh trained local leaders on filing FIRs and facilitated engagement with the police, leading to overdue missing complaints finally being recorded.

In Bangalore, Samvidhaan Fellow Shirisha, under the guidance of Senior Advocate Sondhi, is working to improve enforcement of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) among unorganised domestic workers.

In Chhapra, Bihar, Fellow Sunita Kumari previously had to turn away indigent clients due to limited resources. Now, through the Samvidhaan Fellowship, she can provide pro bono legal aid without financial restraints.

In Karnataka, Sandarshini dedicates an entire working day at NIMHANS' crisis center, ensuring victims of violence and abuse receive immediate legal support.

A sustainable future for legal aid

The Samvidhaan Fellowship highlights an important lesson: decentralising legal aid through public-private partnerships can enhance the effectiveness and reach of pro bono services. By involving senior legal professionals as mentors and funders, such initiatives ease the burden on statutory legal aid bodies while maintaining quality legal representation.

By mentoring district-level lawyers, senior lawyers can bridge the knowledge gap, ensuring that young legal professionals are well-equipped to serve marginalised communities.

Financial contributions can also help expand the program, allowing more fellows to take up pro bono work without financial strain.

When asked about how senior advocates can chip in to make legal aid sustainable rather than dependent on statutory institutions, Advocate Aditya Vikram Bhat stated,

"The answer is obvious. Legal aid needs time and money from senior members of the bar. The manner of application of this time and money is however critical. In my view, a senior advocate's time and money needs to go towards the creation of a legal aid or pro bono ecosystem and infrastructure, motivating the best young lawyers to do legal aid/ pro bono 'tours of duty', training lawyers and the participants in the ecosystem around them, and getting involved in select cases."

If you are a senior advocate looking to contribute beyond courtrooms, your expertise and support can strengthen access to justice for those who need it the most.

Join hands with Nyaaya to support the Samvidhaan Fellowship - whether through mentorship or funding.

To learn more or to get involved, reach out to admin@nyaaya.in

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently ruled that adult, unmarried daughters who are physically and mentally sound, cannot claim maintenance under Section 488 of J&K Code of Criminal Procedure which provides for grant of maintenance to wives and children (Abdul Raheem Bhat (Senior Citizen) V/s Beauty Jan and Ors.)

Justice Rahul Bhatri was dealing with a petition moved by a senior citizen, against a Judicial Magistrate's order directing him to pay a maintenance of ₹1,200 each to his two adult, unmarried daughters

"A bare perusal of Section 488 would show that the two unmarried daughters of the petitioner, being of major age but suffering no physical/mental abnormality or injury rendering them unable to maintain themselves, were not supposed to invoke Section 488 CrPC by any stretch of claim or reasoning," the Court said.

The two unmarried daughters and a son of senior citizen in 2014 had moved the trial court for maintenance from their father. However, the Court in 2019 allowed the plea only with respect to the daughters.

Interestingly, the senior citizen himself had also moved a separate petition for maintenance from his son. The same was allowed in 2017 with a direction to his son to pay ₹2,000 monthly maintenance.

Finding that the daughters could not have claimed maintenance, the High Court said the courts below missed the aspect. Accordingly, Justice Bharti held that order of judicial magistrate was incorrect and set it aside.

"The petition is allowed," the Court ordered.

Advocate GN Sofi appeared for the petitioner.

[Read Judgment]

The Forces Law Review (FLR), the first international military law journal, was unveiled on April 9 at the Commonwealth Law Conference in Malta, which saw the attendance of Punjab and Haryana High Court advocate Major Navdeep Singh among others.

Three Indian lawyers and a former High Court judge are among those tasked with the editorial oversight of the journal.

Earlier, Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant had attended the plenary session of the conference and spoken on the topic ‘Democrats and Despots – Does Consensus Work?’

The FLR is a unique academic collaboration between the National Institute of Military Justice (NIMJ), Washington DC, USA and the Centre for Constitution and Public Policy (CCPP), University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

It covers matters related to the defence services and other uniformed forces such as the Police, the Paramilitary and the Armed Police Forces.

The journal was unveiled on Wednesday at the sidelines of the Military Justice Panel of the Commonwealth Law Conference by the panel-speakers - Justice Alan Large of the United Kingdom; Major Navdeep Singh, Advocate, Punjab and Haryana High Court, India; Mukhtar Adesunkanmi of the Commonwealth Secretariat; Dr Mario Spiteri of Malta and Alex Ward of Australia, along with Justice John Logan of the Federal Court of Australia.

The first volume of FLR carries messages by Justice Augustine George Masih of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Rajendra Menon, the Chairperson of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Professor Renu Vig, Vice Chancellor of Panjab University, and Judge Alan Large, the head of the service judiciary of the United Kingdom.

The journal carries the text, case-briefs and summaries of important judgments from all over the world, principally from constitutional/ appellate courts with precedential value and also carries a separate section on briefs of recent important developments on the subject and another section for contributed opinion pieces approved by the editors.

The first volume will be available all across the world by the end of this month.

The editorial oversight of FLR has been undertaken by three nominated Chief Editors and an Editorial Advisory Board comprising reputed personalities from the fields of law, the judiciary and academia. Six Student Editors selected globally have assisted in the project. All editorial positions are honorary and unpaid. 

The Chief Editors (Honorary) nominated by the NIMJ and CCPP are Prof Franklin Rosenblatt of the Mississippi College School of Law, USA who is the current President of NIMJ, Judge of the National Guard Court of Appeals and a former JAG officer of the US Army; Prof Shruti Bedi, Director CCPP and the current Director of the University Institute of Legal Studies (UILS), Panjab University, Chandigarh and Major Navdeep Singh, Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court.

The members of the Editorial Advisory Board (Honorary) are Justice Maria Elizabeth Rocha (Brazil), Justice Rajiv Narain Raina (India), Judge Alan Large (UK), Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma (India), Prof Daniel Maurer (USA), Prof Brenner Fissell (USA), Prof Gwenaël GUYON (France), Prof Rachel VanLandingham (USA), Prof Eugene Fidell (USA), former Head of the Office of Civil and Criminal Justice Reform, Commonwealth Secretariat Francisca Pretorious (South Africa), Dr Song Tianying (Italy), Dr Ronald Naluwairo (Uganda) and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati (India).

The Bombay High Court at Goa recently emphasised the importance of respecting the growing autonomy of adolescent children who may be embroiled in parental custody battles.

In the April 9 order, the Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta refused a mother’s plea to retrieve her 15-year-old son from the custody of his father in Goa, after the boy expressed his wish to stay back with his father.

“Though [the boy] is below 18 and therefore in a technical sense a child, he is away from maturity by two years, but we find that he has made a decision for himself and we must express that he is not at the age to feel bound by the decision taken for him by others, including the Court itself," the Court said.

The mother had filed a habeas corpus petition in 2025 after her 15-year-old son, who had lived with her in Canada for around five years, did not return from a visit to India with his father.

The parents, both Indian citizens, had divorced by mutual consent in 2019, with a Goa court granting the mother primary custody and the father visitation rights of up to 56 days annually.

In March 2025, during a holiday visit, the father allegedly took the child back to India without the mother's consent, prompting allegations of abduction, forgery to get a new passport, and manipulation.

The mother claimed that all of this violated court-ordered custody terms and disrupted the child’s academic life in Ontario, where he was excelling.

She accused the father of alienating the child and argued that virtual schooling would compromise his education.

The father countered that the boy had chosen to stay with him and was unwilling to return, adding that he had enrolled him in Ontario Virtual School, which offered an equivalent diploma. He also asserted that his custody was not unlawful in the absence of any harm to the child.

The Court, after personally interacting with the 15-year-old, noted the seriousness and clarity with which the boy expressed his views.

“We were repeatedly told by [the boy] that he had accompanied his father on his own will and he shall not be forced to return back to Canada and be in the company of the mother ... We could hear a voice of a young man, who is developing in an adult. He is at an age which is inherently infused with disturbance and psychological confusion ... he is full of rage and we do not intend to put him in a situation, which would cause him any physical, emotional or psychological harm and it would not be definitely in his interest," it observed.

While denying the mother's request to compel the boy's return to Canada, the Court emphasized on the welfare of child.

It upheld her legal custody over him but directed her to cooperate in facilitating the boy's education through online schooling. The father was directed to ensure regular meetings with the mother to rebuild their relationship.

“We expect the petitioner [mother] to respect his decision,” the Court said.

It stressed that the welfare of the child, particularly an adolescent, must include his right to make 'his choice.'

Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju with advocate Caroline Collasso appeared for the petitioner-mother

Senior Advocate AA Agni with advocates J Shaikh and Harihar appeared for the father.

Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Faldessai appeared for the State of Goa.