Satisfactory performance in the Legal Aid Defence Counsel scheme does not automatically guarantee contract renewal; only those graded as 'good' or 'very good' are entitled to extension.

ORDER :

P.T. Asha, J.

The above Writ Petitions have been filed to call for the records relating to the notification issued by the second respondent Vide No.TNSLSA/6562/S3/2025/7720 dated 18.12.2025 and to quash the same and consequently to extend the services of the petitioners as Legal Aid Defence Counsels in their respective posts.

2.The common case of all the petitioners is that all of them are advocates enrolled in the rolls of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on various dates. The first respondent/National Legal Services Authority had introduced the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (Modified) Scheme, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’) with an objective of strengthening the criminal legal aid system in the Country. The scheme proposes to address shortcomings in the earlier panel lawyer system, where legal aid lawyers where engaged on a case-to-case basis, while continuing private practice, which resulted in the advocates not being available when the case is being called, no accountability and consequently, an ineffective defence for the poor and marginalized members of the society.

3.The Scheme aims to establish a full time, professional and institutional defence mechanism on the lines of a public defender system. Under this scheme, selected advocates are required to work exclusively for legal aid, from the pre-arrest stage till the conclusion of the trial and appeal. These candidates are prohibited from engaging in private practice during the tenure of their service. In acknowledgment of their exclusive services for the legal aid, they are also paid a stipend. The selection procedure for these candidates is on a contractual basis, initially for a period of two years, with a stipulation for an extension on yearly basis, subject to their satisfactory performance.

4.The grievance of the petitioners in the instant case is that although all of them have put in satisfactory performance, they are sought to be eased out as the second respondent has decided to initiate the selection process to select the candidates for appointment as Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel, Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel and Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel in the place of aforementioned legal aid counsel by issuing a fresh notification and to send the selection list to the third respondent. The petitioners would submit that the scheme clearly provides that once they are engaged and their services are satisfactory, they are entitled to automatic renewal. Therefore, they sought to have the impugned order quashed.

5.The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has filed a counter denying the petitioners’ contention with reference to the rights of the petitioners to continue as Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC’s.). The NALSA would submit that the word ‘yearly’ has to be interpreted as “on a year to year basis” in paragraph 22 of their counter, as stated as follows;

“It is therefore submitted that the Scheme must be interpreted to mean that after the completion of the initial two- year tenure, an extension, if granted, would be limited to one year. The provision cannot be construed to imply recurring annual renewal or automatic continuation beyond the extended period. The same may be inferred from the communication dated 15.03.2024 received from Department of Justice”

6.When the matter had come up on 02.03.2026, this Court had directed the respondents to produce an evaluation of the candidates who have been appointed under the scheme in various Departments. Today, a list of 53 LADC’s whose period came to an end on 08.01.2026 was produced before this Court. A perusal of the same would show that while most of the candidates have been