The formal sessions started with Mr. R. K. Saxena, Former Inspector General, Rajasthan Prisons and Honorary Consultant with CHRI, who dealt with Administrative Reasons for Non-Appearance before the Courts. Various examples were cited wherein the police officials fail to bring the accused out of judicial custody for a hearing and then ask for remand or they give an excuse of non-availability of escorts. All these instances are clear violation of the concept of Fair Trial, as the same requires the accused to be aware of every aspect of his/her case. Further, he also explained the reasons as per law, which affords the liberty of absence of accused from the court. These reasons are illness of the accused which has to be accompanied with a medical certificate, if the release time is shorter than time taken to travel from jail to court, and lastly if a special permission has been obtained by the government. There was a specific mention of right to protected conversation, which is basically a right provided to the lawyer to meet the prisoner alone.

Second session of the day was led by Mr. Ajay Verma, and he spoke about the concept, ‘Liberty is Paramount’. Here, Mr. Verma not only spoke about the importance of communication between the accused and the lawyer, but also questioned the need for custodial interrogation when the accused and the lawyer are co-operative in every step of the way. This session was followed by another one, which dealt with Remand and First Appearance, and was jointly headed by Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Advocate in Rajasthan High Court and Mr. Ajay Verma. Initially the focus was on provisions under Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 22 of the Constitution, subsequently, few cases dealing with these aspects were discussed. Mr. Saxena, made the session interesting and interactive by throwing out offences to the participants and asking them the period of detention that is permissible by law. Mr. Verma spoke about Hussainaira Khatoon v. State of Bihar, and the principles that have been expounded by the Supreme Court.

The day came to an end with a session on Bail not Jail, a concept explained in Moti Ram v. State of  Madhya Pradesh, by Ms. Sugandha, Project Officer with CHRI. This session was largely interactive in nature, as the focus was on role playing. Here, few case studies were distributed and young lawyers were given an opportunity to argue the case on bail provisions in front of the judges, Mr. Anshuman Saxena and Mr. Verma. This session was concluded with round of questions, and the participants were requested to provide their feedback. The workshop was an effort to provide lawyers with all the knowledge and techniques, so they are able to provide effective representation to the accused, and to sensitize them towards the problems that are faced by the accused on a regular basis.

First Session of the workshop dealt with Rights and Problems of the Accused behind Bars, and was chaired by Mr. R. K. Saxena, Former Inspector General, Rajasthan Prisons and Honorary Consultant with CHRI. He started the discussion by focusing on the premise that every individual is innocent until proven guilty and is required to be dealt with accordingly; also, the problems faced by under trials were stressed. The questions that followed the discussion were answered effectively and to the satisfaction of the participants. The following session focused on Client Interview and was moderated by Mr. Ajay Verma. Mr. Verma made the session interactive from the very beginning by starting qawwali session, wherein, the participants were divided in two groups of lawyer and client, and were asked to sit on opposite sides. What followed was an active discussion from both sides that revealed the problems that a client or a lawyer might face while interacting with each other. It was emphasized by Mr. Verma that it is necessary to build a relationship with the client and the importance of showing concern to the client and the case. In other words, the client should not feel that he/she is merely another file to the lawyer as this leads to poor getting poor justice and effective advocates remain out of reach to them.

The day continued and the post-lunch session articulated the Duties of Defence Lawyer, and the same was jointly chaired by Mr. Anshuman Saxena, an Advocate in Rajasthan High Court, and Mr. Ajay Verma. All the duties as laid down by the Bar Council were enumerated and, further the requirements that a lawyer should fulfill, when the client is poor, in order to give provide effective representation were discussed. An insight was shared by Mr. Saxena, wherein he mentioned that a proper legal aid case can work as a spark for you and it will open the gate for many cases. Last session of the first day was by Ms. Aarthi Ranjan, an advocate, and dealt with Elements of Fair Trial. The day ended on the note that fast track courts does not mean fast track convictions but fast track judgments, as fair trial also means a trial without undue delay.

Second day of the workshop started with a recap of previous day, and a session dealing with Common Illegalities – Standards, Practices and Remedies followed. This session was led Ms. Abha Joshi, Advocate and an Activist, and the same was informative in respect of various illegalities that are suffered by the undertrials or even convicts. The center of this session were four case studies that were distributed amongst the lawyers present and the discussion was on the basis of the same. These four case studies were of a juvenile accused of theft, a life term convict who was tortured in jail, a Dalit undertrial who died while in judicial custody, and lastly, of an accused who was encountered when he tried to abscond. It was pointed out by Ms. Joshi that illegalities occur everywhere and it is the duty of a lawyer to challenge them. Another point of importance that was spoken about was Plea-bargaining, and how the lawyers should not agree to something that they might regret at a later date. A documentary called ‘Bol Basanto’ was screened for the audience and the same dealt with the atrocities committed by police officials. The message highlighted in the documentary was that the police is not above law but is for the protection of law.

The last session of the workshop was a Panel Discussion on Common Practices that Contribute to Delays. The Panel was constituted of Ms. Joshi, Mr. Verma and Mr. R.K. Saxena and was moderated by Mr. Anshuman Saxena. The ways to deal with delays were discussed and to rectify them in the best interest of the client. The lack of a Magistrate or a Police Official in the Panel was felt, as that would have provided insight of the other side as well.

The workshop concluded by presentation of gifts to the resource persons as a token of appreciation and gratitude by Mr. Mohun. A promise was made by the advocates present to implement the insight provided by the workshop in their endeavor to become successful trial court advocate