Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected any rollback of LADCS, warning striking lawyers. Citing 27 days of judicial remedy disruption, it said it would not take the matter lightly and would act appropriately if they refused to heed reason.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear that a rollback of the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System (LADCS) was not on the table, and issued a stern warning to striking lawyers in Punjab, observing that lawyers were shamelessly blocking the courts and bringing the administration of justice to a stay.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor made the observations while hearing a petition raising concern over the continuing agitation by advocates and the resulting denial of access to justice to litigants across Punjab.
The Court noted that, while it was trying to avoid harsh measures against the Bar, it would not hesitate to resort to them if that became unavoidable. It said that genuine grievances about the misuse of the scheme could be examined, but that the manner of the protest a shutdown of the courts was unacceptable.
Rejecting the demand for a rollback in unequivocal terms, Justice Mishra remarked,
“There is no way we are going to succumb. Unreasonable demands have to be met in an unreasonable manner. This is what is going to come.”
Recording the scale of the disruption, and the Court’s unwillingness to let it continue, the Bench observed,
“What they thought was that if we put more pressure, the system will succumb to this. The entire State of Punjab for the last 27 days is in a state of shutdown so far as the availability of judicial remedy is concerned. We are not going to take it lightly. Whatever is appropriate, we are going to do…if they are willing to see reason, otherwise whatever be the consequences,”
The Court also observed that a committee was already examining the lawyers’ concerns, but that the opportunity had been misused. Dismissing the underlying dispute as an internal contest within the Bar, it remarked that only a small fraction of matters were being routed through the scheme in any event,
“There is absolutely nothing. It is just Bar politics which possibly is the reason,”
It added that only 7% of cases were being filed through the LADCS.
While unsparing about the strike, the Bench did not dismiss the substance of the lawyers’ grievance out of hand. It indicated that it would look into the allegations of preferential treatment being extended to legal aid counsel, but made clear that it would not countenance one set of lawyers pitted against another, and called for an immediate end to the agitation. The matter was directed to be taken up again after the lunch recess.
The plea before the Court proceeded on the footing that while protest through legitimate means is a recognised way of highlighting matters of importance, it is not open to anyone to obstruct the administration of justice or to shut litigants out of access to the courts. That tension between the Bar’s right to voice its grievances and the litigant’s right to a functioning justice system lay at the heart of the proceedings.
The Legal Aid Defence Counsel System is a scheme launched by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to strengthen the delivery of legal aid in criminal matters. Under it, a cadre of salaried, full-time defence counsel is engaged to represent accused persons who cannot afford a lawyer, functioning as a dedicated public defender-style office rather than through the older model of empanelled private advocates paid case by case.
It is precisely that shift which has provoked the agitation. Various bar associations, along with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, have opposed the present structure and implementation of the LADCS, contending that it has given rise to a parallel, State-funded criminal defence system that undercuts independent advocates.
According to the protesting lawyers, a substantial share of criminal matters is now being handled by LADCS counsel, who are also said to be accorded preference by the courts at the bail and remand stage.