Contrary To NALSA Scheme: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes SLSA SOP Mandating Fresh Selection Of Legal Aid Defence Counsels
The SLSA issued an SOP requiring all Legal Aid Defence Counsels to undergo a fresh selection process upon completion of their contractual term, without providing for renewal based on performance.
Justice Vishal Dhagat, Justice Anuradha Shukla, Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) for conducting a fresh selection of Legal Aid Defence Counsels after completion of two years, holding that the SOP was contrary to the Modified Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme, 2022 framed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice Anuradha Shukla held that the 2022 Modified Scheme does not authorize the SLSA to formulate or implement an independent selection mechanism. The Court clarified that under the Scheme, the role of the SLSA is limited to evaluating the performance of Legal Aid Defence Counsels and, where necessary, terminating their services for unsatisfactory performance. It does not permit compulsory re-selection after the completion of the initial contractual period.
The Court said, "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".
Background
The petitioners were appointed as Legal Aid Defence Counsels under the Modified Scheme of 2022, which was introduced to ensure free and competent legal representation to eligible accused persons, undertrials, and convicts as contemplated under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Petitioners 1, 3, and 5 were appointed as Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsels; petitioners 2 and 4 as Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsels; and petitioner 6 as Assistant Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel.
Their appointments were contractual in nature, with an initial tenure of two years, extendable based on performance. The contract expressly provided that in case of unsatisfactory performance, the engagement could be terminated in accordance with the Scheme.
The Modified Scheme of 2022, framed by NALSA, establishes a detailed mechanism for appointment, performance review, and continuation of Legal Aid Defence Counsels. Under the Scheme, selection is conducted by a Selection Committee chaired by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and approved by the Executive Chairman of the SLSA. Performance assessments are mandated every six months, and continuation beyond the initial two-year term depends on satisfactory evaluation. The Scheme also clearly demarcates the supervisory roles of the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSA) and the SLSA.
However, on August 6, 2025, the SLSA issued an SOP requiring all Legal Aid Defence Counsels to undergo a fresh selection process upon completion of their contractual term, without providing for renewal based on performance.
The petitioners contended that the SOP was in direct conflict with the Modified Scheme of 2022, which allows extension of service based on performance rather than mandating a fresh selection. They argued that the SLSA had no authority to amend or override the Scheme framed by NALSA and that only NALSA was empowered to do so. It was further submitted that their performance evaluations conducted by the DLSA were satisfactory and that they were entitled to continuation under the Scheme.
The State, on the other hand, argued that the Modified Scheme was only a broad framework and that the SLSA was free to adapt it in accordance with local requirements. The State asserted that the SOP was introduced to strengthen the recruitment process and improve the quality of legal aid by ensuring that the most capable candidates were selected.
Findings
After examining the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, particularly Sections 7 and 8, the Court held that the SLSA is statutorily bound to implement the policies and directions issued by NALSA. It has no independent authority to devise procedures that are inconsistent with the Scheme framed by NALSA.
The Bench noted that the Modified Scheme of 2022 comprehensively governs selection, evaluation, extension, and termination of Legal Aid Defence Counsels. It does not contemplate or permit a fresh selection process after the completion of two years. Instead, it clearly provides for extension of tenure based on performance evaluation. The Court categorically observed that the Scheme does not vest any power in the SLSA to create a parallel or contrary mechanism.
The Court further emphasized that the petitioners were appointed strictly in accordance with the Modified Scheme and that binding contracts had been executed between the parties. The SLSA could not unilaterally alter the terms of those contracts by introducing a new SOP. Any such attempt amounted to an impermissible modification of contractual and statutory obligations.
The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the SOP dated August 6, 2025. It directed that the petitioners shall continue in their respective posts under the terms of their original contractual engagements. The Court clarified that their performance shall be assessed only in accordance with the Modified Scheme of 2022 and that any further action regarding continuation or termination must strictly comply with the provisions of that Scheme.
Cause Title: Ramkrishna Soni & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors., [2025:MPHC-JBP:69324]
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Siddhant Jain
Respondents: Advocates Sunita Sood Gupta. Harjas Singh Chhabra
