Ensure That Appropriate Mechanism Is In Place To Monitor Appearance Of Legal Aid Counsels; Consider Establishing Grievance Redressal Mechanism: Delhi HC To DSLSA
The petition before the Delhi High Court was filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order of the Sessions Court and the Magistrate’s order.

Highlighting the vulnerability of financially weak complainants, the Delhi High Court issued a set of guidelines to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority in order to ensure that an appropriate mechanism is put in place to monitor the appearance of legal aid counsels in cases where they have been appointed, in all the District Courts of Delhi.
The petition before the High Court was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 whereby the petitioner sought setting aside of the order of the Sessions Court and the Magistrate’s order dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “The lack of efforts by the Courts below to probe into the reasons for absence of legal aid counsel, and the failure to provide adequate support, including appointing a substitute counsel, if needed, speaks volumes about the manner in which the legal system sometimes handles vulnerable individuals.”
Advocate Archit Upadhyay represented the Petitioner while APP Rajkumar represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2018 when Respondent no. 2 and his associates started abusing the petitioner and his wife and threatened to kill both of them while the petitioner was repairing the roof of his house. They had then demolished the top wall of the petitioner's property with the intent to harm him and his wife. The petitioner called the police and recorded the petitioner’s statement. As no action was taken by the police in response to the complaint, the petitioner filed a formal written complaint to the SHO. However, no action had been taken on his complaint and neither an FIR was registered.
The petitioner filed a formal complaint before the DCP but no action was taken for redressal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate seeking a direction for the registration of an FIR but the same was dismissed. The Magistrate noted that the petitioner had appeared in person, but the legal aid counsel was not appearing and the complainant had not led pre-summoning evidence. The Sessions Court dismissed the petition because the petitioner had not filed any complaint against the legal aid counsel appointed by the Delhi Legal Services Authority [DLSA].
Reasoning
On a perusal of the record, the Bench noted that on each occasion when the case was listed for hearing, the complainant sought adjournments on the ground of the non-availability of his counsel. However, the complainant was present on every date of hearing before the Magistrate. It was evident from the record that the legal aid counsel had been appointed by the Secretary, South-East DLSA as per the order/letter on record. While the case was listed for recording pre-summoning evidence, the legal aid counsel did not appear even once, making it a ground for dismissal of the complaint by the Magistrate
“It is distressing to note that the incident in question occurred in 2019, and despite the petitioner’s efforts to seek justice, he remains without a resolution six years later. This delay is exacerbated by the inaction of the police, non-availability of legal aid counsel on every date of hearing, as well as the mechanical approach of the learned Magistrate and Sessions Court”, the Bench said. As per the Bench, the Sessions Court totally ignored the fact that the record clearly revealed that there was an appointment letter appointing a legal aid counsel for the petitioner, and each order sheet of the Magistrate revealed the absence of his legal aid counsel. Therefore, there was no question of the complainant being negligent in pursuing his case as he himself was present on each and every date of hearing, however, the counsel appointed to assist him did not reach the Court.
Emphasizing how the the complainant was deprived of substantive and effective assistance, as the procedurally assigned a legal aid counsel did not appear even once, the Bench restored the complaint to its original number and its stage and listed it for pre-summoning evidence. Setting aside the impugned orders of the Sessions Court and the Magistrate, the Bench requested the concerned DLSA to ensure that a legal aid counsel is appointed at the earliest, and the Magistrate concludes the pre-summoning evidence within two months.
Directions
The Bench thus issued the following directions to the Secretary, DSLSA:
- The Secretary, DSLSA, is directed to ensure that an appropriate mechanism is put in place to monitor the appearance of legal aid counsels in cases where they have been appointed, in all the District Courts of Delhi. It must be ensured that legal aid counsels duly inform the Secretary of the concerned DLSA about their regular appearances in the cases assigned to them.
- The DSLSA shall also devise a framework to address situations where a legal aid counsel fails to appear for two consecutive dates in a case, ensuring that timely and effective steps are taken to safeguard the interests of the litigants.
- The DSLSA shall also consider establishing a review or grievance redressal mechanism to enable litigants to report instances of non-representation by legal aid counsels, so that corrective measures can be taken without undue delay.
- The judicial officers be also sensitized and encouraged to ensure that such cases are brought to the notice of concerned Secretary, DSLSA, in case of non-representation where a legal aid counsel has been appointed.
- A compliance report in this regard shall be filed before this Court by the Secretary, DSLSA within 6 weeks.
Cause Title: Bachittar Singh v. State of Nct of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC: 505)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Archit Upadhyay
Respondent: APP Rajkumar, SI Himanshu Kumar Dubey