Court Upholds Contractual Termination Powers of DLSA Chairman but Protects Counsel's Reputation Following NALSA's Closure of Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme
In a significant judgment dated October 5, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) addressed the contentious termination of Mr. Vikramaditya Singh Raghav, a Legal Aid Defence Counsel engaged under the Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme (LADCS), 2022. The Court upheld the authority of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) Chairman to terminate contractual services under the scheme but quashed and expunged stigmatic remarks of negligence and unsatisfactory performance recorded against the petitioner without any formal enquiry.
Background:
Mr. Raghav was initially appointed as an Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel on January 9, 2023, for a fixed tenure of two years, which was extended by one year till January 9, 2026. Subsequently, on January 12, 2026, his services were terminated by the Chairman of the DLSA, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, on grounds of alleged negligence and unsatisfactory work performance. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition, contending that the termination was made without conducting any enquiry and that the adverse remarks were stigmatic, potentially impacting his future career.
Legal Framework and Issues:
The Court analyzed the LADCS, 2022, formulated by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to provide contractual engagement of legal aid defence counsels, akin to a public defender system. Clause 4 of the scheme mandates engagement initially for two years with possible yearly extensions based on satisfactory performance, and Clause 6 empowers the DLSA Chairman to terminate services without prior notice under specified circumstances, including unsatisfactory performance.
The petitioner argued that while termination under the contract may be permissible, the inclusion of stigmatic allegations of negligence without an enquiry violated principles established under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court judgment in Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024). The petitioner also contended that the termination was merely a pretext to replace him with another counsel.
Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the termination complied with the scheme's provisions, and that the LADCS itself was discontinued by NALSA's order dated August 4, 2026, which directed no renewal of existing contracts post their tenure. They highlighted that the challenge to NALSA's order was pending before the Supreme Court without any stay on its operation.
Court's Findings:
1. Authority to Terminate: The Court affirmed the DLSA Chairman's competence under Clause 6 of the LADCS to terminate services without prior notice for unsatisfactory performance or negligence.
2. Stigmatic Remarks Without Enquiry: The Court held that the remarks of negligence and unsatisfactory service were stigmatic in nature and liable to affect the petitioner's future career adversely. As per settled law, such punitive and stigmatic termination requires an enquiry, which was absent in this case. Therefore, recording such remarks without enquiry was impermissible.
3. Discontinuation of LADCS: The Court noted NALSA's subsequent discontinuance of the LADCS and its directive not to renew existing contracts, which was under challenge but not stayed by the Supreme Court. In light of this, continuation of the petitioner's services was not feasible.
4. Relief Granted: While denying reinstatement due to the closure of the scheme, the Court quashed and expunged the adverse remarks against the petitioner. It further directed that these remarks shall not be treated as stigmatic against the petitioner in any future professional context.
Significance:
This judgment balances the contractual rights of authorities to terminate engagements under specific schemes and the fundamental protections against stigmatic termination without due process. It underscores that even contractual terminations involving allegations of misconduct must adhere to principles of natural justice where reputational damage is concerned.
The judgment also reflects the impact of policy decisions such as the discontinuation of legal aid schemes on contractual employees, clarifying that such discontinuations override claims for continuation but do not validate unjustified adverse remarks.
The petitioner was represented by Mr. Satyendra Singh Raghav and Mr. Anirudh Singh Raghav, while the respondents were defended by Mr. Sandeep Pathak and his team.
Bottom Line:
Services of Legal Aid Defence Counsel engaged under LADCS, 2022 can be terminated by Chairman, DLSA as per Scheme, but stigmatic remarks regarding negligence and unsatisfactory work cannot be recorded without enquiry; where LADCS itself stood discontinued by NALSA, continuation in service could not be granted, though adverse stigmatic remarks were quashed and expunged.
Statutory provision(s):
Legal Aid Defence Counsel Scheme, 2022 Clauses 4 and 6; Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
