In a significant ruling affecting the Legal Aid Defence Counsel system, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has quashed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), holding that it runs contrary to the national scheme framed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
The court made it clear that contractual Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs), appointed under the Modified Scheme of 2022, cannot be compelled to undergo a fresh selection process merely because their initial two-year term has ended.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Ramkrishna Soni and other Legal Aid Defence Counsels working in different districts of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners were appointed in August 2024 on contractual retainership under the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System (Modified Scheme, 2022).
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Insecticides Case Against Marketing Firm Over Misbranded Product
Their contracts were for an initial period of two years, with a provision for extension based on performance. According to the petitioners, their work had been found satisfactory, and no adverse remarks were recorded against them.
However, on 6 August 2025, the Member Secretary of the SLSA issued an order introducing a new SOP. This SOP required all existing Legal Aid Defence Counsels to participate in a fresh selection process after completion of their term, with no automatic renewal or re-engagement.
Challenging this move, the petitioners argued that the SOP diluted their contractual rights and directly conflicted with the NALSA’s Modified Scheme of 2022.
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioners contended that the State Legal Services Authority had no jurisdiction to alter or override a scheme framed by NALSA. They relied on Sections 7 and 8 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which mandate State Authorities to act in accordance with the policies and directions of the Central Authority.
They also pointed out that the Modified Scheme clearly provides for extension of contracts on satisfactory performance and does not mandate compulsory fresh selection after two years.
On the other hand, the State Legal Services Authority argued that the SOP was framed to improve the quality of legal aid services. It was submitted that the national scheme only laid down a broad framework and allowed states flexibility to fine-tune procedures. The respondents further argued that existing counsels were not prejudiced, as the SOP awarded them additional marks for prior experience.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench comprising Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla rejected the State Authority’s stand.
“The Modified Scheme of 2022 is not merely suggestive in nature,” the bench observed, adding that the selection procedure and tenure provisions were substantive and binding.
The court noted that while eligibility criteria may be flexible, the scheme does not permit State Authorities to introduce an entirely new selection mechanism that negates contractual extensions already provided for.
It further held that Sections 7 and 8 of the Act clearly place the State Legal Services Authority under the guidance of NALSA, not above it.
“The State Authority cannot take a unilateral decision and rewrite the terms of engagement,” the bench said.
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the SOP dated 6 August 2025 issued by the State Legal Services Authority.
The court directed that all Legal Aid Defence Counsels appointed under the Modified Scheme of 2022 shall continue on their contractual posts. Their work must be reviewed strictly in accordance with the national scheme, and any action, including termination, can be taken only if their performance is found unsatisfactory under the prescribed evaluation process.
With this, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.
Case Title:- Ramkrishna Soni & Others vs Union of India & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 36687 of 2025
