Policy Update
Ravirala Lahari
Background
Article 39A of the Constitution directs the State to provide free legal aid, and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes persons in custody eligible for it (Section 12). Articles 14 and 22(1) also make it obligatory for the State to ensure equality before law and a legal system which promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity to all. But for decades, criminal legal aid ran on the panel lawyer (assigned counsel) model. The older system relied on part-time panel lawyers paid per case (honoraria), District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) empanelled private advocates who took legal aid cases alongside their own practice.
This led to three recurring problems: panel lawyers often could not spare time to consult prisoners, prison visits were not mandatory and some beneficiaries were asked to pay for a free service, which often led to a lack of accountability, irregular prison visits, and poor representation for indigent (poor) accused persons(Leah Varghese & Lakshmi Menon, 2026).
To replace the deficient panel lawyer model- The Legal Aid Defense Counsel System (LADCS) was implemented. It is an institutionalised public defender model that gives marginalised accused persons free, high-quality, end-to-end representation in criminal matters. It does this through full-time, salaried defence lawyers who are barred from private practice, so they can act at every stage, from pre-arrest and bail to trial and appeal. The Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, implemented it with the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). It began as a pilot programme in selected districts in 2020, and later expanded to 365 districts in 22 states in August 2022, and was then approved as a Central Sector Scheme for 2023-24 to 2025-26 (NALSA, 2022).
Functioning
LADCS covers Criminal matters only, for people eligible under Section 12 of the 1987 Act. Section 12 details the broad categories of beneficiaries entitled to receive these free legal services. That includes SC/ST persons, women, children, trafficking victims, persons with disabilities, people in custody and those below the income threshold. Services cover remand, bail, trial and appeals, along with pre-arrest assistance.
Structure: Each district has a Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) office with a three-tier team. The scheme provides for one Chief LADC, one to three Deputy Chiefs and two to ten Assistants, depending on the district
Roles:
- Chief LADC (about 10 years experience): runs the office, supervises the team and conducts trials, appeals and bail in Sessions Courts.
- Deputy Chief (about 7 years experience): handles trials, appeals, remand and bail, makes regular prison visits and guides junior counsel.
- Assistant (0 to 3 years): files matters in Magistrate Courts, visits prisons and legal aid clinics, helps at remand and bail, and keeps clients’ families informed.
Rules that set it apart from the panel system:
- No private practice, Counsel cannot take private briefs during their tenure.
- Fixed pay, Counsel get a monthly honorarium by post and town class, roughly ₹30,000 to ₹1,00,000, in place of a per-case fee.
- Contract term, Appointments are for two years, extendable on evaluation of performance. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the scheme provides for extension on evaluation, not fresh selection.
- Dedicated offices, Each has computers, internet and legal research resources.
Performance
1. Funding and Institutional Expansion
The Centre approved ₹998.43 crore for FY 2023-24 to FY 2025-26 to strengthen legal aid delivery under the scheme. The institutional reach of LADCS has expanded, with functional offices increasing from 654 districts in December 2024 to 680 districts as on 31.12.2025 (PIB, 2026).
The LADCS dashboard reports a total of 6,888 personnel, comprising 635 Chief LADCs, 1,230 Deputy LADCs, 2,397 Assistant LADCs, and 2,626 other supporting staff. This indicates the scheme’s human resource structure across legal and administrative functions(ladcsdashboard).
2. Case Disposal and Operational Performance
Between FY 2023-24 and December 2025, LADCS recorded 8,71,581 disposed cases against 12,62,857 assigned cases, representing an overall disposal rate of approximately 69%. The annual disposal rate increased from 63% in FY 2023-24 to 70% in FY 2024-25 and 73% in FY 2025-26 up to December 2025-partial year figure(Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, 2026).
Table: Criminal cases assigned to and disposed of by Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADCs), FY 2023-24 to 2025-26
| Financial Year | Criminal Cases assigned | Criminal Cases disposed | Disposal Rate |
| 2023-24 | 3,36,830 | 2,12,505 | 63% |
| 2024-25 | 5,32,413 | 3,72,750 | 70% |
| 2025-26 (Dec. 2025) | 3,93,614 | 2,86,326 | 73% |
| Total | 12,62,857 | 8,71,581 | 69% |
Source: Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Law and Justice, 13 February 2026.
3. Bail Advocacy and Undertrial Outcomes
Bail advocacy and remand representation are important functions of LADCS because timely legal assistance can help prevent unnecessary or prolonged pre-trial detention. In a recent reporting period(2025), the system recorded 4,86,354 active assignments, including 1,88,878 bail petitions, demonstrating the importance of bail-related work within its caseload(National Judicial Data Grid, 2025).
As of December 2025, under LADCS 2,76,476 undertrial prisoners had been provided legal representation, while 59,630 undertrial prisoners were reported to have been released during FY 2025-26 up to December 2025. These figures indicate the scale of legal assistance and its potential contribution to reducing undertrial detention(PIB, 2026).
Impact
- Expanded Access to Criminal Defence: Dedicated, full-time defence counsels improve the availability of legal assistance for undertrial prisoners, particularly those unable to afford private representation.
- Improved Bail and Remand Advocacy: Specialised counsel can provide more consistent representation during remand hearings, prepare bail applications and help address unnecessary delays in pre-trial detention.
- Continuity and Case Management: Unlike the earlier panel-based model, dedicated counsel can maintain closer contact with clients, monitor case progress and coordinate legal strategies throughout criminal proceedings.
- Reduced Dependence on Ad-hoc Legal Aid: The shift towards salaried defence teams addresses concerns associated with part-time panel lawyers, including competing professional commitments and inconsistent attention to legal aid cases.
- Contribution to international commitments: LADCS framework also supports India’s commitment under Sustainable Development Goal 16, which calls for access to justice for all and for effective, accountable and inclusive institutions. Target 16.3 asks countries to promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice for all.
Challenges
Structural and institutional challenges
LADCs are engaged on fixed-term contracts, with renewal linked to performance. NALSA’s August 2026 communication directed non-renewal of contracts, raising concerns about the continuity of representation and the transfer of pending cases. Abruptly replacing its lawyers can affect the accused persons they are already representing, not just the lawyers’ employment. In August 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice on a petition challenging this decision.
There is also resistance from Bar associations in Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh raised concerns about the effect of salaried legal aid counsel on private criminal practice. The dispute illustrates the need to reconcile the interests of the wider legal profession with the state’s obligation to provide accessible and competent defence representation(Dhanuka, 2026).
Operational and service-delivery limitations
Emphasis was given on case disposal rather than quality of representation. The reported 69% cumulative disposal rate indicates case-processing activity but does not reveal whether counsel appeared promptly, prepared effective bail applications, conducted adequate cross-examination or kept clients informed. Without comparable outcome indicators and independent evaluation, disposal rates alone provide an incomplete measure of performance(Karnam, 2026).
Uneven staffing and professional capacity. The number of personnel and the availability of experienced defence lawyers may differ across districts. The scheme’s contractual structure and remuneration arrangements also raise questions about retaining experienced criminal practitioners. Any assessment should examine district-level vacancies, caseload per lawyer, remuneration and access to professional training.
Weak evidence for evaluating the scheme’s overall impact. Although NALSA’s framework provides for monitoring and mentoring committees and periodic performance reviews, the published figures discussed above do not provide a comprehensive national assessment of legal aid quality, client experience and outcomes against the earlier panel-lawyer model. This limits the ability to identify what works and where reform is needed.
Way Forward
The debate over LADCS has often been framed as a choice between full-time defence counsel and panel lawyers. The more useful question is how to give every undertrial a competent lawyer who stays with their case, and how to show that this is happening. The recommendations below are grouped under three heads: institutional reform, better service delivery, and accountability backed by evidence.
A. Institutional reforms
Build a stable, performance-based defence framework. Competent lawyers should not lose their positions because of a contract cycle, National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) figures show roughly 2.96 crore criminal cases instituted annually, against this estimate, 4,86,354 cases assigned to LADCs during FY 2025–26 represented around 1.6% of the projected annual criminal caseload. This proves that the scheme causes minimal displacement of private practice briefs, making wholesale rollbacks disproportionate. A hybrid approach could keep dedicated defence teams for sustained criminal representation, while qualified panel lawyers handle additional demand and specialist work. That gives young advocates a role without breaking the continuity that full-time teams provide(Sharma, 2026).
B. Improving service delivery
Service delivery should be judged and improved on outcomes, not only disposals. NALSA should track how quickly counsel is appointed, representation at first production and remand, bail applications filed and decided, continuity of counsel and client feedback, and publish this district-wise on its dashboard. Also Staffing should follow local caseloads and vacancies, with pay revised where justified and regular training in bail advocacy, criminal procedure, evidence and trial preparation. And Improve awareness and last-mile access.
C. Accountability and evidence-based reform
Commission an independent national evaluation. An independent evaluation should compare LADCS with panel-based legal aid on timeliness, quality of representation, cost, bail outcomes, client satisfaction and continuity of counsel. Its findings should decide whether the current model is retained, modified or replaced.
If the scheme is restructured, the change should follow a documented process: a formal handover of pending cases, continued access to case records, notice to clients when their counsel changes.
References
- Leah Varghese, & Lakshmi Menon. (2026, September 22). LADC scheme removal: Prioritising misguided concerns over the right to legal aid? Bar And Bench – Indian Legal News. https://www.barandbench.com/columns/ladc-scheme-removal-prioritising-misguided-concerns-over-the-right-to-legal-aid
- National Legal Services Authority. (2022). Legal Aid Defense Counsel Scheme 2022.https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s33778e38faa5a4554abf520fe1d9fbd5e/uploads/2025/06/202506101226671906.pdf
- Government is implementing different scheme for ensuring affordable and accessible justice to citizen. (2026, March 13). PIB. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2239463®=1&lang=1
- AdminDesigns. (n.d.). Legal Aid Defence Counsel system. https://ladcsdashboard.nalsa.gov.in/
- Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice. (2026, February 13). PIB. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2227723®=3&lang=1
- National Judicial Data Grid. (2025). NJDG. https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdg_v3//?p=home&app_token=
- Karnam, M. (2026, September 10). NALSA decision to end legal aid defence counsel system puts undertrials access to justice at risk. The Wire. https://m.thewire.in/article/rights/nalsa-decision-to-end-legal-aid-defence-counsel-system-puts-undertrials-access-to-justice-at-risk/amp
- Sharma, N. (2026, September 18). NALSA’s Retreat From Legal Aid Defence Counsel is an Opportunity to Do Something New – The Wire. The Wire. https://thewire.in/law/nalsas-retreat-from-legal-aid-defence-counsel-is-an-opportunity-to-do-something-new
- Dhanuka, M. (2026, August 17). Justice at Risk: India must not retreat from legal aid. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/justice-at-risk-india-must-not-retreat-from-legal-aid-10836989/
About the Contributor
Lahari is a Public Administration and Governance postgraduate from the Central University of Karnataka, with a keen interest in Urban Governance, Public Policy, and Sustainable Development. Committed to making governance more inclusive, sustainable and having a tangible impact on citizens’ lives.
Reviewed by
Gowri Kodali and Debjani
Acknowledgement
I am writing to express my sincere gratitude to IMPRI (Impact and Policy Research Institute) for providing me with the opportunity to prepare this policy update article and for fostering a rigorous learning environment that connects research with public policy practice.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or positions of IMPRI (Impact and Policy Research Institute) or any other affiliated organisation.
Read more at IMPRI:
Telangana Department-wise Schemes Update 2026
