Suits By Indigent Persons: A Comparative Analysis Of Indian And U.S. Codes Of Civil Procedure

Abstract

The paper deals with how an indigent person, i.e., one who is not possessed of sufficient financial means apart from property exempt from attachment in execution of a decree and the subject matter of the suit, is enabled to pay the fee prescribed by law for the plaint in such suit. The paper would go on to elaborate on the principle of in forma pauperis and what kind of persons may sue as an indigent person in the courts and the position of it in Indian Jurisprudence.

The paper will also ponder upon legal remedies available to minor plaintiffs, defendants as paupers, the legal defendants of the paupers, and how suits are filed and dealt in courts in representative capacities.

Aim and Purpose

The paper aims to delve into the procedural aspect in the suit’s procedure, consideration, and on what grounds can a suit of such a nature be rejected. Further, the paper shall undertake a comparative analysis of laws on suits by indigent litigants in India and the U.S. to understand the nature of protection granted to these people in terms of expenses in litigation.

Then the paper shall describe the reforms required for both the American and Indian civil procedure codes to better cater to the needs of indigent persons.

Introduction

In Common Law traditions, courts initially imposed litigation costs to deter frivolous lawsuits. But as societies evolved, it was recognized as a barrier to justice for the poor from seeking legal remedies. To address this, courts began allowing fee waivers for those genuinely unable to afford them.

The entitlement to sue in forma pauperis is explicitly enshrined in the legislations of the contemporary welfare democracies. In India, in alignment with Article 39A of the Constitution, which enshrines the principle of free, impartial, and accessible legal assistance to the economically disadvantaged, the Government of India has consistently enacted legislation favouring the interests of the underprivileged.

These legal provisions encompass matters related to civil, criminal, and labour disputes, where indigent individuals are granted exemption from the associated costs and fees. In the realm of civil litigation, the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically Order 33, contains comprehensive provisions for the adjudication of cases involving indigent persons.

These provisions detail the criteria for ascertaining the indigent status of an applicant, outline the procedural steps involved in the determination process, and specify the course of action to be undertaken by the Court contingent on the acceptance or rejection of the indigent application. The Code also mandates the provision of pro bono legal representation to paupers.

The overarching objective of the rule allowing indigent individuals to institute legal proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in India is primarily the promotion of social justice. This rule ensures that access to the legal system remains accessible to all members of society, irrespective of their financial circumstances.

It seeks to guarantee that individuals unable to bear the financial burdens associated with legal proceedings, including court fees and legal representation costs, are not deprived of their fundamental right to seek legal redress. It underscores a commitment to address socioeconomic inequalities and foster social welfare by enabling the underprivileged to access the legal system.

Simultaneously, it includes safeguards to prevent the abuse of this provision, with the courts exercising discretion in granting indigent status to ensure that only those genuinely in need of financial support benefit from this exemption.

In Forma Pauperis – The Law Under the Indian Code of Civil Procedure

Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been instituted to allow poor and destitute individuals to seek recourse to justice despite lacking financial means.^[1] All courts in the territory of India must comply with the rule contained in Order 33.^[2] Even tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies have an obligation to not deny justice due to lack of means.^[3]

In a suit involving an application by the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person, the date of the suit will be the same as that of the application for indigence.^[4] Once the court accepts the application, the suit proceeds as usual and summons is issued to the defendant under general provisions of the Code. If the application is rejected, the plaintiff is directed to pay the court fees. The suit may proceed only after the requisite payments are made.

While the right to sue *in forma pauperis* helps the poor to a limited extent, many individuals marginally above the qualifying threshold are forced into indigence, merely because the law does not recognize them as indigent.^[5] Certain fees—such as for service of process and costs imposed as a condition for adjournment—must be paid by every person, regardless of indigent status.^[6] However, such costs do not include the entire costs of the other side.^[7]

Who May Sue as Indigent?

Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908^[8] defines an indigent person. Explanation I states that an indigent person is one who cannot afford to pay the court fees. Such means must exclude property which would normally be exempt from attachment in execution of the decree^[9] or which is the subject matter of the suit.

The second part of the explanation states that if no prescribed fee exists for the case, then the absolute value of the person’s means—excluding exempt property—must be below INR 1000.^[10] If the person acquires any property before a decision on the application, the court shall consider such property.^[11] If the person is suing in a representative capacity, only that capacity is considered.^[12]

In assessing indigence, the property considered cannot include bare necessities of life or similar necessities for the individual’s family.^[13] If a person has a transferable interest in any property, not in their possession, and can raise money from it, the court will consider it within their means.^[14]

The case of Janak Kumari v. Land Acquisition Officer^[15] illustrates the difference between ‘control’ and ‘possession’. Although the plaintiff’s husband owned 13 acres of land and earned ₹30,000, she had no independent means. The court held that her application could not be rejected based solely on her husband’s property, as she had no real control over it. Only property that the applicant can actually use to raise money should be considered. If the property is tied up in another legal dispute, the court may still allow the plea of indigence.^[16]

1. Minor Plaintiff

   A minor may sue through a next friend, but only the minor’s financial status is relevant for determining indigence.^[17] The financial capacity of parents or relatives is not considered. This differs from English law, where the financial capacity of the next friend is considered.^[18] This rule, however, is inapplicable in India.^[19] Under Order 33, the means of anyone beyond the minor are irrelevant.^[20]

   The minor holds the right personally; the next friend has no financial liability. Requiring the next friend to bear the costs would unjustly burden them and could deny the minor access to justice. The status of the application or the court’s judgment regarding the minor’s indigence does not affect the next friend’s liability under Order 32 Rule 2A to provide security for payment of requisite costs.^[21]
   

2. Suits in Representative Capacity

   In suits filed in a representative capacity, the financial means of the person instituting the suit are immaterial.^[22] Here, the term “person” includes any person allowed to institute a suit. For example, a public company would be considered a person under this order.^[23]

However, a partnership firm is not considered a “person” for this purpose, and the indigence of the individual partners is material.^[24]

The right to appeal as a pauper is governed by Order 44, which is pari materia with Order 33. An appeal against the decision on such an application is governed by Order 43 Rule 1.^[25] Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, however, is not maintainable under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.^[26]

Procedure for Application

Under Order 33, Rule 2, the application to sue as an indigent person must include all particulars required in a regular plaint, along with a schedule of the applicant’s property and its estimated value.^[27] The Court, in such a case, would look into the real cause of action of the suit and then furnish a notice to the opposite party and the government pleader to enquire if the applicant is really a pauper.^[28]

The requirements of this rule are said to be properly complied with if the application seeking permission to sue as an indigent is separate from the plaint, both properly signed and verified.^[29] The signature and verification of the property schedule is not strictly enforced and cannot lead to rejection of the application.^[30] These may be rectified by filing an affidavit, which is treated as part of the application.^[31]

Under Order 33, Rule 3 mandates that the application be presented in person by the applicant to sue as a pauper. Unless exempted from personal appearance, an authorized representative may be allowed to present the application, provided they can answer all the material questions regarding the application. They would be examined by the Court as if they were the original applicant. In case of multiple plaintiffs, one of them may present the application on behalf of all.

It must be noted that an application to sue as a pauper is specific to the plaint with which it is attached. Thus, if the plaint exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, then the applicant cannot forward the same application after removal of certain reliefs sought in the plaint.^[33]

Consideration of Application

Order 33, Rule 4 empowers the Court to personally examine the person who has submitted an application to sue as a pauper.^[34] If the application is presented before the Court by an agent, then the agent shall be liable to be examined on the claim and the property of the applicant. The Court may constitute a commission for the purposes of the examination. The courts may then reject an application under Rule 5.

Grounds to Reject an Application

Order 33, Rule 5 states certain grounds which empower the Court to reject the application of the person to sue as an indigent.^[35]

Non-Compliance With Submission Procedure

An intentional departure from Rules 2 and 3 in submitting the application to sue as an indigent amounts to a show of a lack of good faith.^[36] If the applicant has made any such omission bona fide, then the Court may ignore such omission and may accept the application.^[37] In a situation where an omission under this cause is manifest in the application, the Court should return the same to the applicant for amendment.^[38] If such inclusion does not change the position of the applicant materially, then the Court should deem such omission as bona fide and not reject the application.^[39]

Applicant Is Not ‘Indigent’ In Reality

The requirements of an application to sue as an indigent mandate the attachment of particulars of the person’s property. Violation of such requirement, essentially Rule 2 of Order 33, causes the application to be rejected. Under this clause, the Court is to consider the mentioned means of the person and rule whether the person is truly indigent. The central importance of this condition is that once the Court accepts the applicant qualifies as indigent, it cannot later reverse that during the case on the merits.^[40]

No Disclosure of Cause of Action

The enquiry under this ground is not limited to procedural issues such as jurisdiction or pecuniary value. The Court is required to enquire whether the suit has a cause of action that is capable of being enforced under any law and is not time-barred.^[41]

Transfer of Interest to Third Party in Subject Matter of Current Suit

A transfer of interest under this clause may either be vested or contingent.^[42] But such interest may not include a promise by a party to pay the fees of the lawyer out of the suit property.^[43] However, for the agreement for transfer of interest to be considered by the Court, the agreement has to be valid and subsisting on the date of the consideration of the application.

Allegations In The Plaint Barred By Law In Force

The addition of the clause allegations in the plaint being barred by any law in force, in addition to the cause of action clause, is to lend greater importance to laws such as those regarding limitation in deciding the validity of a suit in the initial stages.

However, if the application discloses a reason for the delay in the filing of the suit and raises a valid defence against Limitation, then the application cannot be rejected summarily and such issue in the suit has to be decided at the stage of trial.^[44]

Agreement With Third Party To Finance Litigation

If the applicant has a binding agreement with a third party to finance the litigation, then he has sufficient means to pay the Court Fees regardless of his personal finances. This is to ensure that the right to sue in forma pauperis must not be left to be misused by unscrupulous litigants.^[45]

However, if the application is not rejected by the Court after the preliminary examination under Rule 4, for reasons mentioned in Rule 5, as per Rule 6, the Court may institute a further hearing for considering evidence regarding the application.^[46]

The date of such hearing should be intimated to the plaintiff, the defendant, and the government pleader at least ten days in advance. All the mentioned parties can adduce evidence either to prove or disprove the application.^[47]

It must be remembered that the evidence at this stage is confined solely to the question of indigence and would not extend to the merits of the case.^[48]

The central question which the court seeks to answer is if it was correct in deeming the application valid as against the conditions mentioned in Rule 5. But what is important is their distinction between the standards and procedure mentioned in Rule 5 and those in Rule 7 with regard to hearing.

• Rule 5 governs the preliminary scrutiny based solely on the application and the Court’s own knowledge.
• Rule 7 involves a formal hearing where evidence may be presented by the parties.

The final order of the Court on the application to sue as a pauper is made only after the hearing under Rule 7, based on more comprehensive evaluation of the applicant’s indigence.

One important procedural qualification that might be seen as a difference between the rules is with regard to the matters on which evidence might be taken by the Court. Thus, a hearing under Rule 7, the Court may seek evidence with regard to the means of the applicant from any of the witnesses brought before the Court.

It is important to note that once the Court of First Instance grants the applicant the right to sue as an indigent, the opposite party cannot raise the same question in the Court where the order of the former Court has been taken up for appeal.^[49] But it can be subjected to a revision petition.^[50]

Procedure After Court’s Decision on the Application

If the application to sue as an indigent person is accepted by the Court, Rule 8 of the Order provides that it shall be registered and numbered. The same shall be treated as the plaint in the suit and, except for the exemptions of the applicant from payments, the suit shall proceed as any other.^[51]

Moreover, the plaintiff is also not liable to pay for a pleader. If he is not represented by a pleader, the Court may assign a pleader for the applicant under Rule 9-A.^[52] When a litigant lacks a pleader and desires to be aided by the state in securing one, he is to be directed to approach the Legal Aid services.

Rule 9-A reflects the practical challenge indigent litigants face in affording legal representation when they can’t even pay court fees. To that extent, the Central government or the State government is empowered to make supplementary regulations to provide free legal aid as an institution to indigent litigants.^[53] The High Court of the concerned state shall have the power to regulate such further rules framed by the States.

Thus, for example, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has added Rules 17 to 21 in this order, requiring the counsel for the indigent to:

• State the amount of fees clearly along with his Vakalatnama
• Impose specific obligation with regard to serving of summons or notice on such counsel, and so on^[54]

Rule 9 of the Code empowers the Court to withdraw the permission given to a person to sue as a pauper.^[55] For such withdrawal to take effect, the Court has to receive an application from the defendant or the Government Pleader on one of the many grounds mentioned under the Rule. The Court has no power to suo motu withdraw the application.^[56]

On being dis-paupered, the plaintiff now has to pay the Court fees, failing which, the Court cannot proceed with the suit.^[57] The order of the Court dismissing the suit in the formerly conceived condition would have to be set aside if, upon revision of the order under Rule 9, the Court re-instates the indigent status on the applicant.^[58]

If the right to sue as an indigent is not granted by the Court, then as under Rule 15, it prevents the person from applying again in the same matter. The Court under this rule may also order the applicant to pay the costs of the defendant and the State in opposing his application to sue as an indigent.

Liability to Pay Court Fees After Judgement

Once the suit has been decided upon, the liability of the indigent person with regard to the Court Fees is contingent on the decision itself.^[59]

If the Court rules in favour of the indigent person, then the Court shall, as per Rule 10:

• Determine the original Court Fees in the suit
• Deduct it, as the first charge on the subject matter of the suit, from whosoever is directed to bear the costs in the decree

If the suit, for example, decrees that the costs of the plaintiff be paid by the defendant, a subsequent order to the plaintiff to pay the Court Fees under this rule puts the final financial burden on the defendant.^[60]

If in a case, the indigent plaintiff partly succeeds, the Court shall make the payment of Court Fees to be apportioned between both the plaintiff and the defendant.^[61]

If, on the contrary, an indigent person fails in a suit, or is dis-paupered by the order of the Court, or the suit itself is dismissed for mentioned reasons, or withdrawn, then Rule 11 provides that the pauper plaintiff or the co-plaintiff, if present, shall be ordered to pay the Court Fees.^[62]

Any such order by the Court to recover Court Fees from either party, as under Rule 14, shall operate as a decree to the Collector.^[63]

Comparative Study in the USA of Right to Sue as an Indigent

The first statute allowing indigent persons to sue free of cost and fees was enacted by the U.S Congress in 1892. The statute provides for the “Commencement, prosecution or defence of any suit … without prepayment of fees and costs…by a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay such costs.”

The Courts, however, have the right to reject an application under this statute if the poverty of the said applicant is found to be untrue or if the suit is found to be frivolous or malicious. In 1910, the Act was amended to extend to both civil and criminal cases. A 1922 amendment transferred the cost of producing a copy of the judgment for appeal purposes to the U.S. government. To secure a free transcript, the applicant must prove the application is not ‘frivolous’ and involves a substantial question for revision. A 1959 amendment further expanded the Act to include any ‘person,’ not just citizens.

The extent of coverage of indigent persons under this statute can be considered in two lights. First, regarding the forums it covers, non-judicial forums do not provide such protections. Protection applies only when a civil court has direct jurisdiction over such a body. In contrast, the categories of litigation expenditure covered are more vague—due to both statutory ambiguity and evolving contexts. Disputes exist over whether costs like copies of judgments, witness securing, and incidental expenses are included.

Unlike in the U.S., where such expenses are unclear, Indian courts have clearer boundaries. Pauper litigants in India are exempt from court fees but must often cover other costs like adjournment or service fees unless explicitly waived.

To initiate litigation as an indigent, a petitioner must apply to the Court with an affidavit of poverty. Once approved, court officials are obligated to act as they would in regular cases unless ordered otherwise.

In Adkins v. Dupont, the Court ruled that indigence should be based on net assets and income, excluding assets involved in the suit. Factors such as marital status, number of dependents, employment nature, and earning potential may also be considered. While U.S. courts follow a fact-specific approach, India uses a monetary threshold (INR 1000 and below) with an exempt asset provision.

The term “frivolous” is central to many rejections but remains undefined in statute or legislative history. Most circuit courts use a two-pronged test: the case must have both arguable legal basis and factual merit. In Anders v. California, the Federal Supreme Court held that a suit is frivolous if no legal issues are arguable. In Neitzke v. Williams, the Court added that a frivolous suit involves no significant question of law or fact.

An application may be filed anytime—not just at the start of the suit—if the person later becomes indigent. However, once rejected, the individual may face restrictions on filing future cases as a pauper. Courts may even screen for vexatious litigants or limit the number of lawsuits filed as a pauper.

There are three ways courts may reject such applications: spontaneous rejection, post-filing financial review, or pre-filing inquiry. Spontaneous rejection, though criticized, is procedurally allowed but may prompt unnecessary appeals. In Matz v. Kelsch, omission in the plaint was deemed frivolous, a problem since indigent parties often self-draft and lack legal knowledge.

The lack of statutory clarity between rejection of the suit for being frivolous and rejection of the pauper application causes confusion. Courts sometimes conflate both issues, which leads to inconsistent procedures and interpretations.

In Matz v. Kelsh, the court ruled that lack of a valid claim in the plaint equates to frivolity. Yet, post-Neitzke, courts are required to assess whether any legal or factual argument exists before rejecting such applications. If one is found, the application cannot be rejected.

In India, under Order 33 Rule 5, courts ensure a suit reveals a valid cause of action and isn’t barred by law. Indian courts are less inclined to reject on subjective grounds of frivolity and generally allow proceedings unless there’s clear abuse of process.

U.S. courts can restrict future litigation rights once an application is rejected. This results in an unfair narrowing of access for poor individuals. In Re Macdonald, the Federal Supreme Court barred the petitioner from filing future petitions as a pauper but emphasized the need for balance between avoiding abuse and preserving access to justice.

The main challenge is balancing fast disposal of frivolous pauper applications with ensuring genuine access to justice. The surge in such filings dilutes attention from legitimate claims. Academics have consistently called on Congress to clarify statutory standards.

Conclusion

This paper has analyzed the law regarding the right of indigent persons to sue in the U.S. and India. In India, Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a well-documented, pro-poor framework. Courts limit indigence evaluation to personal property that can reasonably generate funds. Legal aid is available for those who can’t afford representation. However, those slightly above the indigence threshold often fall through the cracks.

While court fees remain important to discourage abuse, mechanisms like Lok Adalats and ADR forums should be expanded for the marginal poor. In contrast, U.S. laws are vague, leading to inconsistent interpretations and judicial controversy. There’s an urgent need for Congress to provide clear guidelines to balance the risk of abuse with the poor’s right to justice.

End Notes:

• Jatindra v. Dwarka, (1983) ILR 20 Cal. 115
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• INDIA CONST. art. 14; INDIA CONST. art. 21.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R. 1, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi, (1995) 5 SCC 730
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R. 8, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Mahadeo Das v. Bishwanath Das, 1939 SCC OnLine All 56
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R. 1, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India)
• Union Bank of India v. Khader International Construction, (2001) 5 SCC 22
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R. 1, Explanation II No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Ibid Explanation II
• Ibid Explanation III
• O.P. Neelam Hosiery Works v. State Bank of India, 1993 SCC OnLine HP 17
• Venkatasubha Reddi v. Kesava Reddi, AIR1950MAD297
• Janak Kumari v. Land Acquisition Officer, 2001 SCC OnLine MP 249
• Johnson v. Ouseph, AIR 2007 KERALA 175
• Chinnamma v. V.P.N. Swaminathan, AIR 1954 Mad 67
• D.F. Mulla, The Code of Civil Procedure 243 (LexisNexis Butterworths 20th edn., 2020).
• Supra note 17
• Maheshwatiben v. State of Gujarat, 1986 SCC OnLine Guj 49
• Disha Sethi v. Chander Mohan Sethi, (2008) 62 AIC 307 (Del)
• U.M. Usman v. Mayor Simon, AIR 1959 Ker. 218.
• Supra note 9
• Grand Buoy Enterprises v. National Insurance Company Limited, 1994 SCC OnLine Ker 227
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 44 r. 1, read with Order 43 r. 1(n) (India).
• Om Prakash v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 All. 115
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Orders 43 r.1(n) & 44, § 1 (India).
• Subba Rao v. Venkata Raman, AIR 1929 Mad. 828
• Munnu v. Shanti Devi, AIR 1973 All. 59
• Wazir Paras Ram v. Manga Ram, AIR 1981 J&K 10
• Vijay Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, AIR 1962 SC 941.
• Supra note 9
• Govindaraju v. Hanumantha Rao, AIR 1946 Mad. 7 (India).
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 44, R. 1, read with Order 33, R. 4, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 44, R. 1, read with Order 33, R. 5, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Chellamal v. Muthulakshmi Ammal, AIR 1945 Mad. 296 (India).
• Ramakrishna v. Govindammal, AIR 1954 Mad. 537 (India).
• Supra note 31
• Murugan v. Sivaraman, 1955 SCC OnLine Mad 208
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R. 2, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Kamu v. M. Manikandan, (1998) 8 SCC 522
• Zainab Begum v. Khurshid Begum, AIR 1963 AP 370
• Manohar v. Lakshman, (1885) ILR 9 BOM 371
• Jagdish Rai v. Ujagar Singh, AIR 1985 P&H 57
• Bommineni Laxmi Devamma v. Bommineni Konappa, 1989 SCC OnLine AP 74
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R. 6, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Ibid
• Abdul Wakil Khan v. Mt. Bibi Talimunnissa, 1950 SCC OnLine Pat 66
• Mumtazan v. Rasulan, (1901) ILR 23 All. 374 (India).
• Supra note 59.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R.8, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R. 9-A, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R. 18, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Code of Civil Procedure, Order 33, R. 17-21, Acts of Andhra Pradesh State Legislature, 1908 (India), as amended by Andhra Pradesh High Court.
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § Order 33, R. 9, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Mahommad Roshan Ali v. Venkataswara Rao, AIR 1958 AP 441
• R. Jayarja Menon v. Rajkrishna, AIR 1998 Ker. 15
• Venkatanarasimha v. Gangamma, AIR 1954 MAD 258
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R.10, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Supra note 9
• Jaswant Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1661
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R. 11, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 33, R. 14, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
• Act of July 20, 1892, ch. 209, 27 Stat. 252 (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. § 1915).
• 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2023)
• Act of Sept. 2, 1959, Pub. L. No. 86-320, § 1, 73 Stat. 590 (amending 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to substitute “person” for “citizen”).
• Wiren v. Eide, 542 F.2d 757, 764 (9th Cir. 1976).
• Ibid.
• Braden v. Estelle, 428 F. Supp. 595, 598 (S.D. Tex. 1977).
• Hullom v. Kent, 262 F.2d 862, 863 (6th Cir. 1959) was further referred in the case of Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 1964).
• Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948)
• Ibid.
• Stephen M. Feldman, Indigents in the Federal Courts: The in Forma Pauperis Statute-Equality and Frivolity, 54 Fordham L. Rev. 413, 419 (1985).
• Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225–26 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984).
• Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
• Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989).
• Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1245 (5th Cir. 1975).
• Wayne A. Kalkwarf, Petitions To Proceed In Forma Pauperis: The Effect of In re McDonald and Neitzke v. Williams, 24 Creighton L. Rev. 803, 807 (1990–1991).
• Ibid.
• Nash v. Black, 781 F.2d 665, 668 (8th Cir. 1986).
• Munz v. Parr, 758 F.2d 1254, 1258 (8th Cir. 1985).
• Matz v. Kelsch, 638 F.2d 48 (8th Cir.1981).
• Smith v. Bacon, 699 F.2d 434, 436 (8th Cir. 1983).
• Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31–33 (1992)
• Supra note 77
• Matz v. Kelsch, 638 F.2d 48 (8th Cir. 1981).
• In re MacDonald, 489 U.S. 180 (1989).
• Supra note 87
• Turner, When Prisoners Sue: A Study of Prisoner Section 1983 Suits in the Federal Courts, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 610, 611 (1979).

Written By:

1. Mansi Fulzele – Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur and
2. Sejal Raghuwanshi – Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur