Demand for fees from legal aid recipients warrants removal of advocate from legal services panel.

The petitioner, an advocate on the 'B-Panel' of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Coimbatore, was assigned a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MCOP) case to represent the fifth respondent

On January 12, 2026, citing illness, the petitioner engaged a friend (also an advocate) to file a vakalath on his behalf

It was alleged that the friend demanded and received ₹500 from the fifth respondent and further demanded ₹2,000 to conduct the case

Consequently, the third respondent (Principal District Judge cum Chairman, DLSA) removed the petitioner from the B-Panel via an order dated March 2, 2026

The petitioner challenged this order through a Writ of Certiorari, asserting a violation of natural justice and claiming he had not been reimbursed for expenses in prior legal aid cases

1. Whether the removal of the petitioner from the panel of advocates was legally sustainable under the prevailing regulations governing legal services

2. Whether the conduct of the petitioner in delegating his duties to a third party who solicited fees violated the core objectives of the Legal Services Authorities Act

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which mandates providing free and competent legal services to ensure justice is not denied due to economic disabilities

Regulation 8(16) of the National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010, strictly prohibits panel lawyers from asking for or receiving any fee or remuneration from the person to whom legal services are rendered.

Regulation 8(17) of the National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010, empowers the Legal Services Institution to remove a lawyer from the panel if they perform unsatisfactorily or act contrary to the spirit of the Act and Regulations

The court observed that the primary objective of the Legal Services Authorities Act is to assist the weaker sections of society

The Court found that the petitioner’s admission regarding the engagement of a friend to file the vakalath and the undisputed fact that said friend received ₹500 from the client constituted a direct violation of the empanelment conditions

The Court reasoned that such conduct is "unbecoming of an advocate" tasked with the noble duty of providing free legal aid

The petitioner’s defense—that he was unwell and had not been reimbursed for previous cases—was deemed insufficient to overlook the breach of professional trust and statutory regulations

The court concluded that the third respondent acted within their authority to maintain the integrity of the legal aid system

The court held that soliciting or receiving money, even through a proxy, fundamentally contradicts the object of the 2010 Regulations

The court directed the third respondent to ensure that any fees or dues legitimately payable to the petitioner for his past services be settled at the earliest in accordance with the law