Punjab & Haryana HC Issues Seven-Point Directions on Legal Aid Defence Counsel System Amid Lawyers’ Protest
A practicing lawyer’s PIL over a prolonged lawyers’ strike in Punjab prompted the High Court to issue administrative directions reforming the Legal Aid Defence Counsel system, while expressing pain over 27 days of blocked access to justice.
A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, has issued seven administrative directions governing the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) system across Punjab, in the course of hearing a PIL filed by Arvind Seth, a practicing advocate of the Court. The petition arose from an ongoing lawyers’ protest in the State of Punjab that had, by 27 July 2026, blocked litigants’ access to courts for 27 consecutive days. The bench circulated the directions to Judicial Officers and Secretaries of District Legal Services Authorities on 27 July 2026. On 28 July 2026, the bench also recorded its concern that its earlier oral observations had been “misquoted at certain forums,” and adjourned the matter to 30 July 2026 on the request of counsel for further deliberations.
The Dispute Before the Court
Arvind Seth, appearing in person, filed the PIL raising concerns about the denial of access to justice to litigants in Punjab on account of an ongoing protest by lawyers. The petition acknowledged that protest by legitimate means is a recognised avenue for highlighting grievances, but contended that the protest was crossing into interference with the administration of justice and preventing litigants from accessing courts.
When the petition first came up on 20 July 2026, the bench noted the submissions and, at its request, the President of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, members of the Bar Council, and senior counsel appeared before the Court. Those representatives expressed the view that the issues ought to be resolved at the level of the Bar itself. The bench expressed hope that the matter would not require judicial intervention, and listed it again on 23 July 2026.
On 23 July 2026, the bench was informed that discussions were underway with a likelihood of early resolution, and the hearing was deferred to 27 July 2026. However, the protest continued. By 27 July 2026, the bench was also in receipt of multiple representations alleging misuse of the LADC system, which it decided to address on the administrative side.
The LADC System and the Alleged Misuse
The Legal Aid Defence Counsel system operates under the framework of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and provides legal representation to eligible accused persons who cannot afford counsel. The representations received by the Court alleged that this system was being misused, raising concerns about transparency in the assignment of counsel, direct solicitation of clients by legal aid lawyers inside jails, and inconsistent practices at the stage of remand proceedings.
Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 prescribes the eligibility criteria for persons entitled to legal aid. The directions issued by the bench require the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, to apply this provision and any other applicable guidelines when assessing eligibility for LADC assistance.
Seven Administrative Directions
On 27 July 2026, the bench circulated the following directions to Judicial Officers and Secretaries of District Legal Services Authorities across Punjab:
Jail visit roster: The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, shall prepare a jail visit roster for Legal Aid Defence Counsel. Judicial Officers should ordinarily refrain from accompanying LADC lawyers during jail visits.
Assignment of cases: Assignment of Legal Aid Defence Counsel for representing accused persons shall be done only by the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority. No LADC lawyer shall be permitted to obtain a power of attorney directly from jail inmates.
Procedure when defence counsel is absent: If a defence counsel fails to appear and the Presiding Officer is of the opinion that such absence is wilful or mischievous, the officer shall not directly appoint a Legal Aid Defence Counsel immediately. Instead, the Presiding Officer shall first pass an order recording the absence and take steps to communicate it to the accused or the advocate. If the accused or the lawyer still fails to appear on the next date, the case may be forwarded to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority for LADC appointment.
Uniform approach to bail: While directing the release of an accused on bail bonds, surety bonds, or personal bonds, the court shall adopt a uniform approach and extend parity.
Remand proceedings: When an accused is produced before an Ilaqa Magistrate for remand, the court shall ascertain whether the accused is represented by counsel. If so, the court shall wait for the appearance of the defence counsel. Where the accused has no counsel, the court shall provide the assistance of a Legal Aid Defence Counsel. No power of attorney of the LADC lawyer, however, shall be filed at that stage. If the accused thereafter desires to continue through LADC representation, the assignment shall be made only through the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority.
Eligibility verification: The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority shall satisfy themselves regarding the eligibility of an applicant for LADC assistance in terms of Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and any other applicable directions or guidelines.
Professional ethics: Legal Aid Defence Counsel shall strictly adhere to professional ethics and the terms of their engagement. They shall not solicit work for themselves or for any practicing member of their family or chamber.
The Court’s Observations on Access to Justice
On 27 July 2026, after the directions were shared with the parties, the High Court Bar Association representatives, and the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, the bench noted that practically all concerns regarding the alleged misuse of the LADC system had been addressed. The bench orally observed that Judges, while discharging duties on the Bench, are in a state of “temporary adoption” and remain part of the larger judicial family that includes the Bar. The bench expressed pain and anguish over the continued and prolonged blocking of access to justice to the common litigant throughout Punjab for 27 days, describing it as shameful for the justice delivery system. The matter was deferred to 28 July 2026 on the assurance of likely amicable resolution.
On 28 July 2026, when the matter was taken up, the bench was informed that its oral observations had been misquoted at certain forums. The bench recorded regret that despite the detailed directions issued to address the Bar’s apprehensions about the LADC scheme, a “concocted projection” was being sought to be made. The bench reiterated to members of the Bar that denial of access to justice to the common litigant would be a failure on the part of the entire justice delivery system, which cannot be permitted.
Outcome
On 28 July 2026, on the request of counsel for all parties seeking one more opportunity for deliberations, the Division Bench adjourned Arvind Seth v. State of Punjab and Others (CWP-PIL-181-2026) to 30 July 2026. The seven administrative directions issued on 27 July 2026 remain in force for Judicial Officers and Secretaries of District Legal Services Authorities across Punjab.