P&H High Court Issues Directions On LADC Scheme Considering Lawyer's Objections
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a set of seven administrative directions to Judicial Officers and Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authorities across the State, aimed at ensuring greater transparency and more effective enforcement of the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) System.
The development comes after the Court received multiple representations alleging misuse of the scheme, in the course of a pending PIL over a prolonged lawyers' protest in Punjab.
Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor said, "As various representations were received regarding the alleged misuse of the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) System, the same were taken up on the administrative side and the following directions were circulated amongJudicial Officers/Secretary District Legal Services Authority, in order to ensure better transparency and effective enforcement of the LADC System on 27.07.2026."
The following directions were issued:
“(i) Secretary, District Legal Services Authority shall prepare a jail visit roster of Legal Aid Defence Counsel. Ordinarily Judicial Officer should refrain from accompanying Legal Aid Defense Counsel at the time of their jail visit.
(ii)Assignment of Legal Aid Defence Counsel for representing accused be done only by Secretary, District Legal Services Authority. No Legal Aid Defence Counsel be permitted to obtain power of attorney from inmates directly.
(iii) If defence counsel fails to appear and Presiding Officer is of opinion that such absence is willful or mischievous, instead of, directly appointing Legal Aid Defence Counsel to defend an accused, he shall first pass order highlighting absence of defence counsel and take steps to communicate the order to the accused or to the advocate representing the accused. If the accused or his lawyer still fail to appear on the next date, the Presiding Officer may forward the case to Secretary, District Legal Services Authority for appointment of Legal Aid Defence Counsel.
(iv) While directing release of an accused on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds or on personal bonds the court shall adopt a uniform approach and extend parity.
(v) When accused is produced before a Illaqa Magistrate for remand, Court shall ascertain whether accused, is represented by counsel, if so, the Court shall wait for the appearance of the defence counsel. When an accused does not have defence counsel, he shall be provided assistance of Legal Aid Defence Counsel. (No power of attorney of Legal Aid Defence Counsel shall however, be filed at that stage. If such accused thereafter, desires to pursue matter through Legal Aid Defence Counsel, the assignment of cases) shall only be done through Secretary, District Legal Services Authority.
(vi) Secretary, District Legal Services Authority shall satisfy themselves with regard to the eligibility of applicant for Legal Aid Defence Counsel in terms of Section 12 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and any other directions)/guideline(s) issued by competent authority.
(vii) Legal Aid Defence Counsel to strictly adhere to professional ethics and terms of their engagements and should not solicit work for themselves or any other practicing member of their family or chamber.”
These directions were issued in the course of a public interest litigation filed by Arvind Seth, a practicing lawyer at the High Court appearing in person, who raised concern over denial of access to justice to litigants across Punjab on account of an ongoing lawyers' protest. When the matter was first taken up on 20.07.2026, the Court had recorded that while protest by legitimate means is a well-recognised means of highlighting grievances, it cannot be allowed to interfere with the administration of justice or deny litigants access to it.
On that occasion, the President of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, along with Bar Council members and senior counsel, appeared before the Court and expressed the view that the issue should be resolved amicably at the level of the Bar itself; the Court expressed hope that "wiser heads will prevail," and deferred the matter to July 23.
On 23 July, the Court noted that, it was informed that discussions were underway with a likelihood of expeditious resolution, and the matter was deferred to July 27, the date on which the seven-point LADC directions above were circulated.
When the recommendations were shared with counsel for the parties and Bar representatives on 27.07.2026, it was agreed that practically all concerns regarding alleged misuse of the LADC System had been addressed, it added.
The Court said that, while orally observing that judges remain part of the larger judicial family that includes the Bar even while discharging duties on the Bench, its "expressed its pain and anguish over the continued and prolonged blocking of access to justice to the common litigant, throughout the State of Punjab for the last 27 days, which would be shameful, for the justice delivery system. On the assurance that there is every likelihood of amicable resolution, keeping in view the measures taken on the administrative side, as noticed above, the matter was deferred to 28.07.2026."
It further said that the Court was informed today (July 28) that its earlier oral observations on the continued blocking of access to justice had been "misquoted at certain forums," and recorded its regret that a "concocted projection" was being made despite the detailed directions issued to address the Bar's concerns.
Reiterating that denial of access to justice to the common litigant would amount to a failure of the entire justice delivery system, the Court said, on the request of counsel for one further opportunity for deliberations, adjourned the matter to 30.07.2026.
Title: Arvind Seth v. State of Punjab and others Case No.: CWP-PIL-181-2026 (O&M)
Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Seth, in person Counsel for the State: Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG, Punjab Also Present: Mr. Rohit Sud (President), Mr. Ashish Bishnoi (Vice President), Mr. Parampreet Singh Bajwa (Secretary), Ms. Kirandeep Kaur (Joint Secretary), Mr. Ashish Rana (Treasurer), Ms. Kamla Malik (Lady Member), Mr. Hitesh Verma and Mr. Navrajdeep Singh (Ex-Members) High Court Bar Association; Mr. Jasman Singh Gill, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5