The constitution of a Selection Committee for Legal Aid Defense Counsel including a Government Pleader and members of the Monitoring and Mentoring Committee is in accordance with the NALSA (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010. Furthermore, a petitioner is estopped from challenging a body they previously accepted.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE ENTIRE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION PROCESS CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 4 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“a) Call for records of the entire documents pertaining to the selection process conducted by the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner continuation as Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsel by extending her tenure for another term, based on the petitioner’s track record available in the DLSA.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to call for a fresh interview with a reconstituted and impartial panel to ensure fairness and transparency in the selection process.

d) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation / Complaint filed by the petitioner dated 28.05.2025 to Hon’ble Executive Chairman KSLSA requesting to extend tenure as Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru marked at Annexure-G.

e) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order No.KSLSA02 / LADCS-B’lore(R) / 2023 869 / 25 dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Secretary of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority Respondent No.2, is herewith produced and marked at Annexure-H.

f) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash any order or appointment of selection list issued by the respondent No.1 dated 13.08.2025 in No.KSLSA:31 / LADCS-Human Resources / 2024 (Phase-I) 994/25 authority is herewith produced and marked at Annexure-J pertaining to Notification marked at Annexure-B issued on 23.12.2024 by the respondent No.1 for the selection of LADCS in Bengaluru Rural Dist.

g) Pass any order or direction as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case by allowing the petition in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Legal Aid Defense Counsel Scheme 2022 in order to point out that the selection procedure prescribed in Clause number 4 of the said Scheme permits selection to be carried out by Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of only the Principal District & Sessions Judge along with three Senior most Judicial Officers and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 were not entitled to include the District Government Pleader or retired Judicial Officer or one Advocate having at least 15 years standing in the bar, which is contrary to the aforesaid Scheme of NALSA and as held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramkrishna Soni and others Vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.36687/2025 dated 18.12.2025 and as such, the impugned Selection List at Annexure – J dated 13.08.2025 appointing respondent No.5 as District Chief LADC deserve to be quashed. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramakrishna Soni supra.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would invite my attention to the aforesaid Legal Aid Defense Counsel Scheme, 2022 , in order to point out that at Clause No.4, the selection procedure clearly mandates, prescribes and provides that the selection shall be carried out by the Selection Committee as envisaged under the NALSA (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations 2010 and contemplates that the Selection Committee should include judicial officers as well as District Government Pleader and as such, the respondents issued the SOP / detailed instructions at Annexure – D, pursuant to which respondent No.5 was appointed as