Contrary To NALSA Scheme: MP High Court Quashes State Legal Services Authority's SOP For Fresh Selection Of Legal Aid Defence Counsel
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed State Legal Services Authority's (SLSA) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for fresh selection of Legal Aid Defence Counsel after completion of two years, noting that it was contrary to National Legal Service Authority's (NALSA) 2022 Modified Scheme.The division bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed that the Modified...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed State Legal Services Authority's (SLSA) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for fresh selection of Legal Aid Defence Counsel after completion of two years, noting that it was contrary to National Legal Service Authority's (NALSA) 2022 Modified Scheme.
The division bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed that the Modified Scheme of 2022 does not confer any authority to SLSA to formulate and implement its own selection process.
The bench observed that the SLSA under the 2022 Scheme was empowered only to evaluate the work of the Legal Aid Defence Counsels and terminate their services if they were not working properly. It directed;
"In view of aforesaid, it is found that new SOP framed by SLSA dated 06.08.2025 is contrary to the Scheme of NLSA. Modified Scheme does not provide for fresh selection after completion of two years of retainership but provides for extension on basis of evaluation of work of LADC. Contract cannot be modified by introducing SOP. In view of above, SOP dated 06.08.2025 is quashed".
Facts
The petitioners were appointed as Legal Aid Defence Counsels under the Modified Scheme of 2022, which aimed to provide free and competent legal services to accused persons, undertrials, and convicts who fell within the eligibility criteria of Section 12 of the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987.
The petitioners, 1, 3, and 5, were employed in the post of Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel. Petitioners 2 and 4 were working in the post of Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel, and petitioner 6 was working as Assistant Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel.
Their appointments were based on a contractual engagement under the Scheme, which allowed for a two-year contract that could be extended based on performance. The contract also stated that if the candidate's performance was unsatisfactory, the engagement could be terminated.
Overview of Scheme
The Modified Scheme, developed by the National Legal Service Authority (NALSA), created a framework for the appointment of Legal Aid Defence Counsels. Under the scheme, the legal counsels were to be engaged on a contractual basis, initially for two years, with the possibility of extension based on performance.
Additionally, the selection process for the positions was carried out by a Selection Committee headed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, and approved by the Executive Chairman of the SLSA.
Performance evaluations were scheduled every six months, and the Scheme also outlined the roles and responsibilities of both the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSA) and SLSA in overseeing the legal services.
On August 6, 2025, SLSA issued an order detailing the implementation of a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), which required all current Legal Aid Defence Counsel to participate in a new selection process once their contracts expired, with no provision for automatic renewal.
Arguments
Per the petitioners, this new procedure posed several concerns. The SOP contradicted the Modified Scheme, which provided for the extension of the contracts based on performance and not based on the initiation of a fresh selection process.
Further, it was argued that the SLSA has no jurisdiction to modify the terms of the contract as outlined in the Modified Scheme of 2022. It was claimed that only the NLSA has the authority to create and implement such a scheme, and SLSA was required to follow its guidelines.
The petitioner claimed that the performance reviews conducted by the DLSA have been satisfactory, and their continuation in their respective positions should have been ensured, subject to periodic performance evaluation.
On the other hand, the State argued that the Modified Scheme was merely a framework, and it had the discretion to modify the scheme based on local needs. It was emphasized that the SOP was meant to improve the mechanism for the recruitment of Legal Aid Defence Counsels.
The SOP, the State argued, would enhance the quality of legal services provided to the marginalized communities by ensuring the best talent.
Observations
The bench examined the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the Modified Scheme of 2022. Per sections 7 and 8 of the 1987 Act, the SLSA must give effect to the policies and directions of the NALSA. It was noted that the SLSA was required to follow the Modified Scheme framed by NALSA and had no authority to create a new set of procedures contrary to the Scheme.
The bench observed that the Modified Scheme did not provide for a fresh selection process but allowed for an extension of contracts based on performance reviews. The Modified Scheme laid down the procedure for selection, performance evaluation and extension, and it did not give SLSA the power to unilaterally alter these terms. It observed;
"Entire Modified Scheme 2022 does not give any power or authority to SLSA to devise its own selection procedure after completion of selection under Modified Scheme of 2022... Modified Scheme, 2022 does not give any jurisdiction or authority to SLSA to devise its new Scheme for appointment of Legal Aid Defense Counsel contrary to Scheme framed by it".
The court further noted that the SOP issued by the SLSA was not in line with the Modified Scheme and was therefore illegal. The petitioners' contractual appointments were made under the terms of the 2022 Scheme, and any changes to these terms could only be made following the guidelines of that Scheme.
The court also noted, "Petitioners were appointed as per Modified Scheme of 2022 and contract has also been entered between petitioners and respondents. Said contract is binding on both the parties. Respondents cannot be permitted to take a u-turn and change the terms of contract unilaterally on their own".
The court, therefore, allowed the petition and quashed the SOP issued by the SLSA. The court also directed that the petitioners continue in the positions under the terms of their original contractual agreements. The court also stated that their performance would be reviewed in accordance with the Modified Scheme, and any action could only be taken based on that review.
Case Title: Ramakrishna Soni v Union of India [WP-36687-2025]
For Petitioners: Advocate Siddhant Jain
For Union: Advocate Sunita Sood Gupta
For NLSA and DLSA: Advocate Harjas Singh Chhabra