The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), holding that it was contrary to the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System (Modified Scheme), 2022, framed by the National Legal Services Authority (NLSA). The Court ruled that SLSA has no authority to mandate fresh selection of Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs) after completion of their contractual term when the central scheme expressly provides for extension based on performance review.
A Division Bench of JusticeVishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla allowed a writ petition filed by several contractual Legal Aid Defence Counsels working under the Modified Scheme, 2022, and set aside the SOP dated August 6, 2025, issued by the SLSA.
The petitioners had challenged the SOP, which required all existing Legal Aid Defence Counsels to undergo a fresh selection process upon expiry of their two-year contractual term, with no provision for automatic renewal or re-engagement. They contended that their appointments were governed by the NLSA’s Modified Scheme, 2022, which clearly provides for extension of engagement on the basis of periodic performance evaluation, and that the SLSA lacked jurisdiction to alter or override the central scheme.
Rejecting the State Authority’s defence that the Modified Scheme was merely “suggestive”, the Court held that, except for eligibility criteria, the Scheme lays down a substantive and binding framework governing selection, tenure, extension, evaluation, termination, infrastructure support and monitoring of Legal Aid Defence Counsels. The Bench emphasised that neither Clause 4 nor any other provision of the Scheme permits the SLSA to devise an independent selection mechanism or deny extension by introducing a new SOP.
The Court further relied on Sections 7 and 8 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, observing that State Legal Services Authorities are statutorily bound to give effect to the policies and directions of the NLSA and must function under its guidance. It held that while SLSA retains the power to evaluate performance and terminate unsatisfactory counsels, it cannot unilaterally change contractual terms or impose fresh selection contrary to the central scheme.
Holding that the SOP amounted to an impermissible unilateral modification of binding contractual terms, the Court quashed the SOP in its entirety and directed that Legal Aid Defence Counsels appointed under the Modified Scheme, 2022, shall continue in service. Their performance, the Court clarified, must be reviewed strictly in accordance with the NLSA Scheme, and any adverse action must follow the procedure prescribed therein.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.
Appearances
Shri Siddhant Jain – Advocate for petitioners. Smt. Sunita Sood Gupta – Advocate for respondent No.1/UOI. Shri Harjas Singh Chhabra – Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 5.
