Plea before Supreme Court seeks stay on NALSA decision to discontinue LADCS contracts

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Central government and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) on a plea challenging NALSA’s August 4 communication directing the discontinuation of contract renewals for lawyers engaged under the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System (LADCS). [Association of Legal Aid Defence Counsels v. UOI]

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale issued notice in the matter.

The petition was filed by serving legal aid defence counsel and supporting staff engaged under the scheme in various districts of Assam, Meghalaya and Nagaland.

The petitioners have sought a stay on the communication and continuation of the existing LADCS system until the case is decided.

NALSA introduced the LADCS scheme in 2022 to provide legal assistance and representation in criminal cases along the lines of a public-defender system.

The scheme came in the eye of the storm earlier this year after lawyers, particularly in Punjab, went on a strike last month, alleging that the scheme created a parallel State-funded criminal defence system which was affecting the practice of independent advocates.

The strike was eventually called off on July 31 after various meetings were held between the bar bodies and High Court judges.

Subsequently, NALSA announced the decision to discontinue contracts of lawyers engaged under the scheme.

By way of a communication issued on August 4 this year, NALSA said that the contracts of legal aid defence counsel in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh will not be renewed from September 2026 onwards.

In the remaining States and Union Territories, their contracts will not be renewed once their existing contractual tenures expire. NALSA also directed that legal-aid cases be assigned to members of the bar, preferably young lawyers.

According to the plea before the top court, NALSA’s decision would place the existing LADCS mechanism in suspended animation, even though a high-level committee constituted by NALSA in March 2026 to review the scheme is yet to submit its report.

The committee comprises Telangana High Court Justice P Sam Koshy, Kerala High Court Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and senior officials of NALSA and State Legal Services Authorities.

The petitioners pointed out that NALSA issued the communication following a meeting with representatives of Bar associations from Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh, despite its review process remaining incomplete.

Thus, NALSA effectively determined the future of the LADCS framework before completing its own review exercise, the petitioner contended.

As per the plea, lawyers in Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh had raised concerns over the alleged diversion of criminal legal-aid work from private practitioners and the concentration of such work among salaried legal aid defence counsel.

However, serving LADCs were allegedly neither consulted nor allowed to place their experience, performance records and suggestions before NALSA.

According to the petitioners, concerns arising from certain States could not justify a decision affecting the legal-aid system across the country without supporting material or a reasoned policy assessment.

They also flagged the absence of an adequate transition mechanism for pending criminal cases.

As per the plea, replacing trained LADCs and supporting staff could disrupt the legal representation of accused persons, particularly undertrial prisoners, and could result in the loss of continuity and institutional knowledge.

The petition was filed through advocate Pallavi Langar.