Legal Aid in Criminal Trial.
Propriety of Third-Party Funding of Criminal Defense.
In January 2025, Judge V.S. Tripathi of the NIA Court delivered a judgment in the Chandan Gupta murder case that sparked controversy. Twenty-eight individuals were sentenced to life imprisonment. But the judgment contained something more. It raised uncomfortable questions about how certain accused persons receive legal representation in India.
The case involved communal violence in Kasganj, Uttar Pradesh. During the investigation and trial, something unusual emerged. Multiple accused persons, including a white-collar professional who was himself a lawyer, were being represented by extraordinarily expensive legal counsel. This was no legal aid. We’re talking about lawyers who charge one to two million rupees per day. These are lawyers who represent billionaires and travel by private jets.
Who was paying? Not the State legal Aid. Not the accused. A network of activist NGOs was financing the defense. Organizations like Alliance for Justice and Accountability, Citizens for Justice and Peace, Indian American Muslim Council, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Rihaee Manch, South Asia Solidarity Group, and United Against Hate.
These NGOs were systematically funding legal defense for Muslim accused in terror-related and communally sensitive cases. They weren’t providing basic legal aid to those who couldn’t afford representation. They were deploying premium legal firepower, funded by external sources, selected based on the religious identity of the accused.
Out of 140 crore Indians, 139 crore cannot afford lawyers charging one to two million rupees per day. Official Legal Aid can not support such high fee. When such lawyers are deployed based on identity in politically sensitive cases, funded by activist organizations with undisclosed sources, something has gone badly wrong.
Judge Tripathi called for an inquiry. He directed the Bar Council of India and the Ministry of Home Affairs to examine this practice. Critics called the judgment one-sided or communally motivated. But that misses the point entirely.
This isn’t about one community or one case. It’s about a fundamental gap in Indian law that allows systematic identity-based litigation financing to operate unchecked.
Let’s strip away the politics and focus on law relating to legal aid.
Legal Analysis
Rule 19 states that an advocate shall not act on instructions of any person other than the client or authorized agent. Rule 40 prohibits advocates from accepting fees from anyone other than the client.
When activist NGOs select cases, engage lawyers, and pay their fees, they become the de facto instructing party. The lawyer’s loyalty shifts. The client may think their lawyer works for them, but the financial reality tells a different story. The NGO paying one to two million rupees per day controls the relationship.
This violates both Rule 19 and Rule 40. The violation isn’t technical or minor. It strikes at the heart of lawyer independence and fiduciary duty.
Political Contingency Financing
The Bar Council prohibits contingency fees. A lawyer cannot charge a percentage of the financial recovery in a case. Why? Because it creates a conflict of interest. The lawyer’s financial interest diverges from the client’s best interest.
But there’s another form of contingency that current rules don’t explicitly address. Call it political contingency financing.
When an NGO funds defense based on the accused’s identity in politically sensitive cases, the NGO has a stake in the outcome. Not a financial stake, but a political one. An acquittal strengthens community morale. It builds a narrative. It establishes precedent for future cases. It demonstrates the NGO’s power and influence.
The principle behind prohibiting financial contingency applies equally here. Third-party funding contingent on political or identity-based outcomes compromises the justice system just as much as financial contingency does. This can not be called legal aid by any stretch, as is attempted in media.
The Identity-Blind Principle
Imagine a Government Company announces publicly that they will pay lawyer’s fees for every bald person, or every person of a particular race, who is prosecuted for any crime. They’ll hire the most expensive lawyers available. Would this be legal?
No. It would violate Article 14’s equality principle. It creates arbitrary classification based on immutable or irrelevant characteristics. It distorts the justice system by making legal representation quality dependent on identity markers rather than individual circumstances or needs.
If such identity-based funding is impermissible, then systematic NGO’s public funding based on religious identity must be equally impermissible. The law cannot apply different standards based on which identity is being privileged. NGO working in public can not claim the privileges which a private person may enjoy.
The NGO Classification
Lee Kuan Yew, then Prime Minister of Singapore understood something important. He wrote in his book on Singapore’s transformation that NGOs engaged in activism are dealing with political issues. They should be registered as political parties, not charitable organizations.
When NGOs systematically intervene in politically sensitive criminal cases, selecting beneficiaries by identity and deploying significant resources to influence outcomes, they’re engaged in political activity. They should be regulated as such. They can not couch it as legal aid.
Currently, these activist organizations operate under charitable or social welfare registrations while functioning as political entities. This misclassification enables them to receive tax benefits and foreign funding meant for genuine charitable work while pursuing political objectives through litigation.
Is this legal Aid?
Lawyers charging one to two million rupees per day are not part of the normal legal aid ecosystem. Out of 140 crore Indians, perhaps 1.39 crore cannot afford such representation. Most people can not afford such lawyers even for a day what to speak of extended litigation in a criminal trial.
These are not public defenders ensuring access to justice. These are the lawyers who represent India’s wealthiest individuals and largest corporations. Their services are completely beyond the reach of ordinary citizens, including middle-class professionals.
When a white-collar lawyer accused in a criminal case receives representation from such premium counsel, funded by external NGOs, this isn’t legal aid. It’s political financing of litigation at any cost.
The Regulatory Gap
The law is currently silent on regulation of third-party legal aid organizations. There’s no requirement that such organizations be identity-blind in their selection criteria. There’s no oversight by the State Legal Services Authority. There are no expenditure limits, no transparency requirements, no consequences for systematic identity-based selection.
This silence creates the appearance of a legal gap. But the gap isn’t in principles. The principles are clear under Bar Council Rules, Article 14, and basic concepts of fair trial and lawyer independence. The gap is in explicit regulation and enforcement.
Recommendations to Plug the Gap:
Amendment to Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987:
The Act should be amended to regulate all third-party legal aid. Registration with the State Legal Services Authority should be mandatory for any organization providing legal aid or funding legal representation.
Selection criteria must be identity-blind. Organizations can select beneficiaries based on financial need or case type, death penalty cases, constitutional rights violations, vulnerable accused who lack capacity. They cannot select based on religion, caste, community, or ethnicity.
Expenditure limits matter. If legal aid organizations want to engage lawyers, the legal fee must be capped to a reasonable amount.
Transparency is essential. Quarterly reports should disclose cases funded, selection criteria applied, lawyers engaged, fees paid, and funding sources including foreign contributions.
Most importantly, systematic selective defense must be prohibited. No organization shall provide legal aid exclusively or predominantly to accused persons of a particular identity in criminal cases.
Violations should result in cancellation of registration, return of foreign funding. It must be made punishable after investigation and prosecution under relevant laws.
Amendment to Bar Council Rules:
The Bar Council should add explicit provisions on third-party legal aid funding. Advocates must never be permitted to accept instructions and fees through third party organizations to ensure that advocate’s professional independence remains intact.
Political contingency financing should be explicitly prohibited. Advocates must not accept fees from third parties whose interest in the litigation is based on the identity of the accused or is political, ideological, or contingent on outcomes favorable to a particular community or cause.
Disclosure should be mandatory. When an advocate accepts fees from a third-party organization, this must be disclosed to the court with an affidavit confirming that selection criteria are identity-blind and professional independence is maintained.
Amendment to FCRA:
If third party funding is not prohibited then it must be strictly regulated.
Systematic legal defense funding in sensitive criminal cases should be classified as political activity under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act. Organizations receiving foreign contributions to fund legal representation in national security offenses, terror-related charges, communally sensitive matters, or anti-national activities should be regulated as organizations of political nature.
This requires enhanced scrutiny, additional reporting, and prohibition where national interest demands it.
Enforcement Mechanisms:
The Bar Council should establish a monitoring committee for third-party funded cases. Suo motu inquiries should be conducted when patterns of identity-based funding emerge. Penalties must have teeth, suspension or disbarment for violations.
SLSA should audit registered legal aid organizations annually and publish reports on their activities. Registration should be cancelled when violations occur.
The Ministry of Home Affairs should investigate funding sources of organizations engaged in systematic defense funding, coordinate with Bar Council and SLSA, and recommend action under FCRA or other applicable laws.
Permissible pro bono litigation
These amendments shouldn’t restrict legitimate legal aid. Pro bono representation by individual lawyers is always welcome. Legal aid by state authorities, NALSA, SLSA, DLSA, should continue without interference.
Regulated legal aid by registered NGOs following identity-blind criteria serves an important function. Even specialized organizations focused on women’s rights, tribal rights, or Dalit rights can operate, but with clear boundaries. Selection must be based on rights violation plus identity as a factor in discrimination. It cannot be systematic defense of all accused of that identity regardless of individual circumstances. Expenditure must be reasonable. And registration with SLSA is mandatory.
These prohibitions don’t restrict access to justice. They ensure that legal aid serves individual need rather than political causes.
Conclusion
Judge V.S. Tripathi was right to call for an inquiry. The practice he identified violates existing legal principles under Bar Council Rules, Article 14, and basic concepts of fair trial. But inquiry alone won’t solve the problem.
The proposed amendments would preserve the right to legal representation for all accused while ensuring that legal aid remains need-based and identity-blind. They would prevent political litigation financing disguised as charity while maintaining lawyer independence and professional ethics. They would provide necessary oversight without restricting legitimate legal aid.
This isn’t about restricting one community’s access to justice. It’s about ensuring that the justice system remains neutral, that legal representation serves individual clients rather than external agendas, and that equality before law means something real.
The law must speak clearly. These amendments would ensure it does.