The Himachal Pradesh High Court has affirmed the interim protection of contractual Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs) whose tenures were set to expire, directing their continuation until the Supreme Court adjudicates the validity of the National Legal Services Authority’s 2022 Modified Scheme. This ruling provides critical stability to a cadre of legal professionals who form the frontline of access to justice in district-level courts.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners are contractual Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs) appointed by various District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) across Himachal Pradesh. Their initial contracts were for one year and were periodically extended. On 30.03.2026, the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority issued an office letter terminating their contractual engagements effective 31.05.2026. Simultaneously, fresh advertisements were issued for the same posts, again on contractual terms, effectively replacing the existing counsel without recourse to regularization or seniority.
Key Facts
- The petitioners have been serving as LADCs since varying dates, with some having served for over five years on successive one-year contracts
- Their roles involve providing free legal representation to indigent accused persons in criminal trials under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
- The appointments are governed by the Modified Scheme of Legal Aid Defence Counsels, 2022, framed by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)
- No formal appointment letters or service rules were issued to the petitioners beyond contractual extensions
- The petitioners were not given any opportunity for representation prior to the termination notice
Procedural History
- 30.03.2026: Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority issued notice terminating LADC contracts effective 31.05.2026
- 05.04.2026: First batch of writ petitions filed before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh (CWP Nos. 5518, 5516, 5517, 5434/2026)
- 10.04.2026: Additional petitions filed (CWP Nos. 5720, 4607, 5375, 5553, 5863/2026)
- 15.04.2026: National Legal Services Authority issued Office Letter No. NALSA/2026/123 dated 23.04.2026, directing all State/UT Legal Services Authorities to extend LADC tenures till final adjudication by the Supreme Court
- 18.12.2025: High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) delivered judgment in Ramkrishna Soni v. Union of India (CWP No. 36687/2025), upholding the validity of the 2022 Modified Scheme and quashing SOPs inconsistent with it
- 2026: Special Leave Petitions (SLP(C) Nos. 6857-6858/2026) filed in the Supreme Court challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argued that their continuous service over multiple years, coupled with the nature of their duties in delivering constitutional rights to the poor, created a legitimate expectation of continuity. They contended that unilateral termination without notice or opportunity of hearing violated Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. They relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment in Ramkrishna Soni, which held that LADCs appointed under the 2022 Scheme must continue until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
For the Respondents
The Union of India and State Legal Services Authorities conceded that the Madhya Pradesh judgment was pending appeal before the Supreme Court but argued that the termination was a policy decision based on administrative convenience and fiscal constraints. They claimed that contractual appointments do not confer any right to regularization and that the 31.05.2026 cutoff was already in effect.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Immediate stay on termination of their contractual appointments
- Direction to continue their service until final disposal of SLP(C) Nos. 6857-6858/2026
- Declaration that the 30.03.2026 termination order is illegal and violative of constitutional rights
- Direction to treat their service under the 2022 Modified Scheme as valid and countable for future appointments
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the termination of contractual Legal Aid Defence Counsels, pending final adjudication by the Supreme Court on the validity of NALSA’s 2022 Modified Scheme, violates the principles of natural justice and constitutional equity, particularly in light of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s binding interim protection granted in Ramkrishna Soni.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioners relied on Ramkrishna Soni v. Union of India, where the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that LADCs appointed under the 2022 Scheme are entitled to continue until the Supreme Court decides the matter. They emphasized that the 2022 Scheme was framed under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which mandates free legal aid as a constitutional obligation under Article 39A. Termination of counsel mid-trial, they argued, undermines access to justice for marginalized litigants. They also cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to argue that long-term contractual service creates a legitimate expectation.
For the Respondent
The Union of India and NALSA contended that the appointments were purely contractual and revocable at will. They argued that the 2022 Scheme was still under judicial review and that the State could not be bound by an interim order from another High Court. They further submitted that the 23.04.2026 NALSA letter was a voluntary administrative direction and not a binding legal obligation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the issue raised in these petitions was identical to the one adjudicated in Ramkrishna Soni, which had been upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the ground that the 2022 Modified Scheme was a statutory framework under the Legal Services Authorities Act, and not a mere administrative policy. The Court noted that the NALSA itself, through its letter dated 23.04.2026, had acknowledged the legal gravity of the matter by directing all State Legal Services Authorities to extend the tenure of LADCs until the Supreme Court’s final decision.
"The National Legal Services Authority, as the apex body under the Legal Services Authorities Act, has itself directed that the contractual period of LADCs shall be extended till the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This is not a mere administrative suggestion but a recognition of the legal and constitutional imperative to ensure uninterrupted legal aid."
The Court held that the State’s attempt to terminate the petitioners’ service while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court was inconsistent with the spirit of the 2022 Scheme and the constitutional mandate under Article 39A. It further noted that the petitioners had been performing essential public duties for years, and abrupt termination would disrupt the delivery of justice to vulnerable litigants. The Court emphasized that the NALSA’s directive, issued after the Madhya Pradesh judgment, was binding on all State Authorities under the statutory hierarchy of the Legal Services Authorities Act.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court directed the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority and all District Legal Services Authorities to continue the contractual service of all petitioners as Legal Aid Defence Counsels until the final disposal of SLP(C) Nos. 6857-6858/2026 before the Supreme Court of India. All pending applications were disposed of. The Court further directed that the petitioners’ service during this extended period shall be counted for any future regularization or appointment process under the 2022 Modified Scheme, subject to performance evaluation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Continuity of Legal Aid Personnel Is a Constitutional Imperative
- Practitioners must now argue that termination of LADCs during pendency of litigation on the 2022 Scheme violates Article 39A and Article 14
- Any State Legal Services Authority attempting to replace LADCs without judicial clearance risks contempt of court and violation of NALSA directives
- Legal aid organizations should document continuous service and maintain records of performance evaluations to strengthen claims for regularization
NALSA Directives Are Binding on State Authorities
- The 23.04.2026 NALSA letter establishes that directives issued under the Legal Services Authorities Act are not advisory but mandatory for implementation
- State authorities cannot override NALSA’s statutory directions on grounds of fiscal constraint or administrative convenience
- Future litigation against termination of LADCs should cite this judgment as binding precedent in all High Courts
Legitimate Expectation Arises from Long-Term Contractual Service
- Service exceeding three years on successive contracts creates a legitimate expectation of continuity, even without formal regularization
- Courts will now scrutinize termination orders that disrupt access to justice, especially where the service is tied to constitutional rights
- Petitioners in similar cases should file applications under Section 12(1)(a) of the Legal Services Authorities Act to assert statutory entitlement
