The National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) has claimed before the Supreme Court that sitting judges heading the State Legal Service Authorities are more effective as compared to other retired judges.

“It is submitted that the general experience of NALSA is that where retired judges are functioning as Executive Chairman, the performance of the State Authorities is not at par with those State Authorities which are headed by a sitting judge,” it clearly stated while furnishing its response on the petition, which sought directions from the court to appoint a sitting judge in the first instance as head of the State Legal Services Authorities rather than straightaway appointing a retired judge.

NALSA’s response came in response to the petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association through its secretary K C Kaushik, who had argued that the purpose of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 would be defeated if retired judges are appointed as chairpersons of the State Legal Services Authority.

Citing examples of the four states — Meghalaya, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and West Bengal — where State Authorities are headed by retired judges, the petitioner’s counsel had submitted: “The intendment of the Act is to have only a sitting judge as the head of the State Authority. If the Act has to be effectively enforced, this position should not be changed.”

All states and Union Territories were asked by the court to file their responses, besides the Ministry of Law and Justice and the apex statutory body — NALSA.

... contd.