When this petition came up for hearing on 20th July 2026, the following order was passed:-

“Petitioner is a practicing lawyer in this Court, who has raised a concern regarding denial of access to justice to litigants in the State of Punjab on account of ongoing protest by the lawyers. It is submitted that protest by legitimate means is well recognized for highlighting issues of importance, but while doing so it is not open for anyone to interfere with the administration of justice or to deny access of justice to the litigants. Prayer has been made in the present petition for this Court to interfere in such circumstances.

On our request, the President of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, as well as some of the members of the Bar Council and learned Senior Counsels, have appeared before the Court. They are of the view that such issues ought to be resolved amicably at the level of the Bar itself. We hope and trust that wiser heads will prevail and this Court would not be called upon to deal with the issue raised in the present matter, on judicial side.

On joint request of the parties, list this matter once again on 23.07.2026.”

On 23rd July 2026, we were informed that discussions are underway, and there is every likelihood of the issue being resolved expeditiously, therefore hearing of the matter was deferred for 27th July 2026. As various representations were received regarding the alleged misuse of the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) System, the same were taken up on the administrative side and the following directions were circulated among Judicial Officers/Secretary District Legal Services Authority, in order to ensure better transparency and effective enforcement of the LADC System on 27.07.2026;

(i) Secretary, District Legal Services Authority shall prepare a jail visit roster of Legal Aid Defence Counsel. Ordinarily Judicial Officer should refrain from accompanying Legal Aid Defense Counsel at the time of their jail visit.

(ii) Assignment of Legal Aid Defence Counsel for representing accused be done only by Secretary, District Legal Services Authority. No Legal Aid Defence Counsel be permitted to obtain power of attorney from inmates directly.

(iii) If defence counsel fails to appear and Presiding Officer is of opinion that such absence is willful or mischievous, instead of, directly appointing Legal Aid Defence Counsel to defend an accused, he shall first pass order highlighting absence of defence counsel and take steps to communicate the order to the accused or to the advocate representing the accused. If the accused or his lawyer still fail to appear on the next date, the Presiding Officer may forward the case to Secretary, District Legal Services Authority for appointment of Legal Aid Defence Counsel.

(iv) While directing release of an accused on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds or on personal bonds the court shall adopt a uniform approach and extend parity.

(v) When accused is produced before a Illaqa Magistrate for remand, Court shall ascertain whether accused, is represented by counsel, if so, the Court shall wait for the appearance of the defence counsel. When an accused does not have defence counsel, he shall be provided assistance of Legal Aid Defence Counsel. (No power of attorney of Legal Aid Defence Counsel shall however, be filed at that stage. If such accused thereafter, desires to pursue matter through Legal Aid Defence Counsel, the assignment of cases) shall only be done through Secretary, District Legal Services Authority.

(vi) Secretary, District Legal Services Authority shall satisfy themselves with regard to the eligibility of applicant for Legal Aid Defence Counsel in terms of Section 12 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and any other directions)/guideline(s) issued by competent authority.

(vii) Legal Aid Defence Counsel to strictly adhere to professional ethics and terms of their engagements and should not solicit work for themselves or any other practicing member of their f