Legal aid advocates must adhere to ethical standards and principles of natural justice; any breach may warrant removal from service.

Seeking quashment of the order dated 2.3.2026 passed by the third respondent, in and by which the petitioner was removed from the B-Panel of Advocates of the District Legal Services Authority, Coimbatore, the present writ petition is filed.

2.1. The nub of the matter is that the petitioner was allotted MCOP case by the fourth respondent to appear on behalf of the fifth respondent vide order dated 15.10.2025. It is stated that the expenses incurred towards filing of vakalath were not reimbursed either by the fourth or fifth respondent till date.

2.2. It is further stated that, on 12.1.2026, as the petitioner was sick, he engaged his friend, Murugan, who is an advocate, to file vakalath on his behalf for the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent alleged that the said Murugan demanded Rs.500/-, which was paid. It was further alleged by the fifth respondent that a sum of Rs.2000/- was demanded from him to conduct the case.

2.3. It is asserted that after filing of the vakalath on behalf of the fifth respondent on 12.1.2026, the case was adjourned to 20.2.2026. It is pleaded that the petitioner has conducted over 30 legal aid cases without any complaint from whomsoever, but based on the allegation levelled by the fifth respondent, the third respondent has removed the petitioner from the B Panel advocates.

Hence, the present writ petition.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and there is no misconduct or breach of trust on the part of the petitioner while discharging his duty as legal aid advocate.

3.2. It is further submitted that in view of the order impugned the reputation of the petitioner is tarnished and his professional life would be adversely affected.

4. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 has been enacted to constitute legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.

5. In the case on hand, the asseverations are categorical to the effect that the petitioner has engaged his friend, Murugan, an Advocate, to file vakalath on his behalf for the fifth respondent. It is further asserted that the fifth respondent is owning auto rickshaw and he could afford to provide fees and engage a private counsel, but the said fact was not considered by respondent Nos.3 and 4. A serious allegation is levelled in the affidavit against third and fourth respondents that they have not provided vakalath fees to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.15,000/- in 29 cases.

6. Be that as it may, it is beyond any cavil that the petitioner has engaged his friend to file a vakalath on his behalf for the fifth respondent. It is also not disputed that petitioner’s friend received a sum of Rs.500/- from the fifth respondent. The explanation offered by the petitioner did not find favour with the third respondent and, accordingly, the petitioner was removed from the B Panel of advocates.

7. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to certain provisions contained in the National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010 herein below:

“8. Selection of legal practitioners as panel lawyers.–

...

(16) The panel lawyers shall not ask for or receive any fee, remuneration or any valuable consideration in any manner, from the person to whom he has rendered legal services under these regulations (17) If the panel lawyer engaged is not performing satisfactorily or has acted contrary to the object and spirit of the Act and these regulations, the Legal Services Institution shall take appropriate steps including withdrawal of the case from such lawyer and his removal from the panel.

[emphasis supplied]

9. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner in