Court Issues Notices to RALSA, NALSA and DLSA Jaipur Metropolitan-II; Stays Orders Ending Counsel’s Tenure and Terminating Services
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has issued notices to the Member Secretaries of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RALSA) and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), as well as the Chairperson of DLSA Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in a case concerning the termination of an Assistant Legal Aid Defense Counsel.
The High Court has also stayed the operation and effect of the orders dated January 9, 2026 and January 12, 2026, by which the counsel’s tenure was not extended and his services were subsequently terminated.
Justice Anuroop Singhi passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Vikramaditya Singh Raghav.
The Court took note of the questions raised regarding the termination of his services on the ground of “unsatisfactory services” without an inquiry, as well as whether the authority that terminated his services had the power to do so.
Appointed as Assistant Legal Aid Defense Counsel in 2023
Raghav was appointed as an Assistant Legal Aid Defense Counsel on January 9, 2023. His appointment order was issued by the Member Secretary of RALSA.
He was working with the District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur Metropolitan-II.
On January 9, 2026, an order was issued not to extend his tenure. Subsequently, on January 12, 2026, his services were terminated on the ground of “unsatisfactory services.”
‘Unsatisfactory Service’ Allegation Without Inquiry
The petitioner argued that the termination order was arbitrary and stigmatic.
It was submitted that describing his professional services as “unsatisfactory” could adversely affect his professional reputation and therefore required a proper inquiry.
The Court was informed that a show-cause notice was issued to him on January 6, 2026, giving him five days to respond.
He submitted his reply on January 9, but was not given a personal hearing. On the same day, his tenure was not extended, followed by the termination order three days later.
Different Authorities Issued Appointment and Termination Orders
The petitioner also questioned the authority that passed the termination order.
While his appointment order was issued by the RALSA Member Secretary, the termination order was issued by the Chairperson of DLSA Jaipur Metropolitan-II.
The petitioner argued that the authority terminating his services was different from the appointing authority and therefore did not have the power to terminate his services.
High Court Stays Both Orders
After considering the arguments, the High Court directed the respondents to file their replies within four weeks.
The Court has stayed the effect and operation of both the January 9, 2026 order not extending his tenure and the January 12, 2026 termination order until further orders.