Back
Supreme Court Asks NALSA To Examine Members' Pay Parity Plea
The on Thursday directed the to examine a plea filed by 14 members seeking structured and dignified remuneration, citing a dramatic expansion in their workload and jurisdiction. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana observed that while the members render valuable service, the issue of pay parity involves structural challenges in fund allocation that cannot be resolved through simple judicial fiat. The Court directed that the petition be treated as a representation before the NALSA Governing Council, which must take an appropriate decision within four months.
Background of the Plea
The petitioners, all members of Permanent Lok Adalats established under the , challenged Rule 3 of the (Other Terms and Conditions of Appointment of Chairman and Other Persons) Rules, 2003. They argued that the rule prescribes discriminatory salary structures—offering a fixed monthly salary to the Chairman while paying other members only a sitting fee of approximately ₹2,500 per hearing. This disparity, they contended, is arbitrary and violates the principle of , especially given the increasing complexity and volume of cases handled by these bodies.
Permanent Lok Adalats were originally conceived as forums focused on public utility services. However, senior advocate , appearing for the petitioners, highlighted that their jurisdiction has expanded substantially to include disputes related to banking and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), housing, and education. The of these Adalats has also been raised to ₹1 crore, compared to ₹50 lakh for District Consumer Forums. Nundy emphasized that last year alone, the members disposed of cases worth ₹660 crore, underscoring the critical role they play in reducing the burden on regular courts.
The Court's Observations on
Chief Justice Surya Kant, while acknowledging the importance of the work done by
members, drew a sharp distinction between their role and that of regular judicial officers.
"These are part of the legal aid scheme. If you find that it's not workable, please leave it. It's a kind of
. There are retired judges, advocates who offer their services. These are not kind of services where conditions of service, parity, equality these things will apply,"
the CJI observed.
He further noted that Legal Services Authorities operate with limited funding and must equitably distribute resources across various priorities, which vary from state to state.
"Even if I want to help them, I may not be in a position because there is structural change required in the routine allocation of funds. There are challenges to be addressed on administrative side,"
he added.
The Discrimination Argument
The petitioners argued that the disparity in remuneration is not merely a matter of quantum but of . Under the current rules, the Chairman of a receives a fixed monthly salary and other benefits, while other members are paid only per sitting. This, Nundy submitted, results in monthly earnings of ₹25,000–₹50,000 for members, whereas an equivalent member of a —after the Supreme Court's earlier orders on pay parity—earns approximately ₹1.6 lakh per month.
Nundy clarified that the petitioners were not seeking parity with the Chairman but rather a "reasonable and dignified" pay scale that reflects the expanded nature of their duties. She pointed out that members are required to work continuously at the district level and are barred from engaging in any other professional work, effectively making their service full-time. Yet, the remuneration remains piecemeal and inadequate.
Procedural Hurdles and Earlier Attempts
The petitioners had previously approached the and the seeking similar relief. However, both high courts referred the matter back to the respective state legal services authorities, which subsequently offered marginal increases. Nundy explained that this created a "second barrier," as the high courts refused to independently consider the issue, leaving the members to the mercy of administrative bodies with limited discretion.
The Supreme Court acknowledged this procedural deadlock but declined to intervene directly. Instead, it opted to refer the matter to NALSA, the apex body for legal services, noting that the issue involves policy decisions about fund allocation that are best handled on the administrative side.
"We cannot simply direct payments without considering these restrictions. It would be better to approach the respective high courts, which can examine the issue based on the grants received from the states,"
CJI Kant said.
Legal Implications and Analysis
The case raises fundamental questions about the nature of judicial and quasi-judicial services in India. While Permanent Lok Adalats are statutory bodies established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, they operate within a unique framework that blurs the line between and professional employment. The Supreme Court's observation that these are "voluntary services" may appear to undermine the petitioners' claim for parity, but it also highlights the structural limitations of the legal aid system.
From a constitutional perspective, the argument based on is not straightforward. The Chairman and members of a are appointed under different rules and perform distinct functions—the Chairman oversees the body while members adjudicate disputes. The Court in earlier cases, such as State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017), has held that temporary employees performing the same work as regular employees are entitled to equal pay. However, the distinction here is that members are not regular employees but part of a statutory scheme with its own funding mechanisms.
The practical challenge, as the CJI noted, is that legal services authorities receive grants from the central and state governments under specific heads. Reallocating funds to increase member remuneration may require legislative or budgetary changes beyond the court's remit. The direction to NALSA to consider the representation within four months is a pragmatic step, but it does not guarantee a favorable outcome.
Impact on Access to Justice
Permanent Lok Adalats are a cornerstone of India's framework, offering speedy and cost-effective justice to millions. If their members continue to be undercompensated, the quality and availability of these services may suffer. Already, many retired judges and advocates are reluctant to serve as members due to the low remuneration. The expansion of jurisdiction to high-value commercial disputes further exacerbates the problem, as members must handle complex matters without commensurate recognition.
A decision by NALSA to enhance pay could set a precedent for other under the legal aid umbrella, such as Lok Adalats and mediation centres. Conversely, a rejection may lead to further litigation, potentially culminating in a to the validity of Rule 3 itself. The Supreme Court has left the door open for the high courts to examine the issue based on state-specific grants, but the petitioners may need to exhaust that route before seeking further intervention.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's order in this case reflects a delicate balance between and the need to address genuine grievances of those serving the justice system. By referring the matter to NALSA, the Court has acknowledged the petitioners' concerns while respecting the administrative autonomy of legal services authorities. The ball is now in NALSA's court, and the legal community will closely watch its response over the next four months. For members, the hope is that their will finally receive the dignity and remuneration it deserves.
