4 min readAug 17, 2026 02:53 PM IST
First published on: Aug 17, 2026 at 02:53 PM IST
The National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) recently directed the non-renewal of contracts of the Legal Aid Defence Counsels (LADCs) engaged by legal services institutions across India. The LADC Scheme is India’s experiment with establishing a more robust and competent public defence system, providing quality legal representation in criminal cases to those unable to afford private lawyers.
The direction followed representations from Bar Associations in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh. Concerns have been raised that LADCs are creating a parallel criminal bar, impeding the independence of the legal profession and affecting the livelihoods of practising advocates.
These concerns should be viewed in light of a number of factors. For 2025-26, the NALSA dashboard on LADCs reports that 4,86,354 cases were assigned to LADCs, including 1,88,878 bail cases. Compared with the overall criminal caseload reflected in the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), these numbers constitute a small proportion. The NJDG indicates that 24,68,339 criminal cases were instituted in a single month, which roughly translates to 2.96 crore criminal cases in a year. Against this, the 4.86 lakh cases assigned to LADCs represent approximately 1.6 per cent of criminal cases instituted. The numbers therefore raise a basic question: Where is the threat to private criminal practice?
To see quality legal services as a threat to private lawyers is quite simply a lost opportunity to raise the bar. If private lawyers feel that a more structured legal aid system threatens their work, perhaps it is an opportunity for introspection. One reason for the popularity of LADCs is the diligence with which many undertake their work — prompt appearances at production and remand hearings; filing appropriate and timely petitions challenging violations of procedural law and protecting their client’s rights. The traditional assigned-counsel system, where private lawyers are empanelled to provide free legal aid, has often been criticised for missing hearings, delayed applications and complaints regarding fees paid by the state.
The interests of lawyers must be balanced against the fair trial rights of the accused. But a functioning system of legal representation should not be reconsidered without first asking what it has achieved and where it needs improvement.
This brings us to another concern — the interim arrangement for assigning legal-aid matters to young lawyers. Are young and relatively inexperienced lawyers equipped to undertake a full range of criminal defence work, including trials? Criminal defence requires experience in case preparation, cross-examination, bail and remand proceedings, trial strategy and navigating the criminal justice system. Those unable to afford private lawyers should not become a testing ground.
Concerns around the LADC system must therefore be examined against evidence. There has, as yet, been no national assessment of the LADC system. Discontinuing or stalling a scheme, duly adopted and implemented by a statutory body, without an assessment and consideration of its impact on ongoing cases, is an injustice to the legal-aid system itself. If the LADC system has demonstrated that dedicated lawyers, institutional oversight and accountability can improve the quality of criminal defence, the response should be to learn from it — not dismantle it.
The writer is a lawyer and expert on criminal justice reforms, legal aid and pre-trial detention
"To see quality legal services as a threat to private lawyers is quite simply a lost opportunity to raise the bar. If private lawyers feel that a more structured legal aid system threatens their work, perhaps it is an opportunity for introspection” (AI generated image) 
Share
