Supreme Court Legal Services Committee asked to appoint a competent legal aid counsel for Nilam Devi

In The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Nilam Devi @ Lilam Devi & Ors. (2025), Supreme Court responded to the letter of Nilam Devi addressed to the Registry of the Court, stating that she requires legal assistance as she was not in a position to engage a counsel on her  own. The Court's order reads: "The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee is requested to appoint a competent legal aid counsel, having at least 15 years of standing at the Bar, to represent respondent No.1. The learned counsel so appointed shall be supplied with a full set of all the papers in the special leave petition. He/she shall secure necessary instructions in the matter and file a counter affidavit by the next date of hearing. Re-list on 09.02.2026. Earlier interim order dated 27.06.2025 shall continue to operate till the next hearing." The case arose out of final judgment and order dated March 24, 2025 passed by Justice Bibek Chaudhary of Patna High Court. 

In its interim order the division bench of the Supreme Court stated that the directions passed by the High Court contained in para 12 of the Order dated 24.03.2025 qua the Additional Superintendent of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna was shall remain stayed. It made it clear that we are not granting stay against the directions of the High Court vis a vis the Station House Officer. The order recorded that "On a query made by the Court, learned counsel for the State submits that an FIR was lodged on 02.04.2025 under Sections 354, 504 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”), Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “the POCSO Act”). 3. On the next date of hearing, learned State Counsel to submit a status report regarding the progress of investigation pursuant to lodging of the aforesaid FIR."

Supreme Court's order dated June 27, 2025 reads: "Given the directions of the High Court in the impugned order, we consider it appropriate that the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, and the then Assistant Superintendent of Police, Danapur, Patna, petitioner Nos. 3 and 6 respectively, should file their individual affidavits in the context of the issues highlighted by the High Court in the impugned order.
It would be open to them to engage independent legal counsel to appear before this Court on their behalf."