Judgment :- Srinivasan, J. The petition prays for issue of writ of habeas corpus directing the Secretary to Legal Aid Centre to appoint Mr.N.Panchakaksharamoorthy as defence counsel of the petitioner to defend the Sessions Case in S.C.No.135 of 1991 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, Strictly speaking, this cannot be a petition for issue of habeas corpus. However, we do not want to be technical. We will treat this as a petition for directions under Art.226 of the Constitution and proceed to dispose of the same. The petitioner is an accused facing trial under Secs.302 (2 counts) and 396, I.P.C. in Sessions Case No.135 of 1991 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem. The Legal Aid Centre, Salem, has assigned one Mr.Narayanan as counsel for the petitioner. It is stated in the affida-vit in paragraph 4 that the said counsel is a colleague of and attached to the office Sri S.N.Srinivasan, who is a senior member of the bar, and who is defending a co-accused, who claimed to be a receiver of stolen properties. It is stated that the defence of the co-accused will jeopardise the defence of the petitioner herein, who pleads innocence. It is said: “4....Thus the Advocate appointed as my counsel will certainly be influenced by his colleague Sri S.N.Srinivasan, who is appearing for A-5 Vadigichetty whose defence is in conflict with mine and I place no trust in the Advocate appointed as my counsel and I expressed my unwillingness in the regard to court of Sessions, Salem, which did not countenance the same.” We do not find any justification for the definite assertion made by the petitioner that the counsel assigned to him will certainly be influenced by his colleague Sri S.N.Srinivasan. Nothing has been said in the affidavit which led the petitioner to such a conclusion or an inference. No other circumstance has been pointed out. It may be the apprehension of the petitioner, but the language used in the affidavit is different. We do not appreciate parties making allegations against advocates without having any basis therefor. Had there been any prior instance or any other circumstances,which would warrant such an allegation, it would have been open to the party to make such an allegation. It may be the apprehension of the petitioner, but the language used in the affidavit is different. We do not appreciate parties making allegations against advocates without having any basis therefor. Had there been any prior instance or any other circumstances,which would warrant such an allegation, it would have been open to the party to make such an allegation. But in this case, nothing else has been mentioned except to say that the counsel is a colleague of and attached to the office of Sri S.N.Srinivasan, That will not certainly prevent him from acting independently in the interest of his client, the petitioner herein and defend him properly in the Sessions Case. 2. However, there is an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. Hence, we are prepared to consider the request of the petitioner. 3. The prayer is to appoint one Mr.N. Panchaksharamoorthy, Advocate, Madras, as defence counsel for the petitioner. This petition is opposed by the counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the second respondent points out that the Legal Aid Centre is governed by the rules framed under Sec.304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. According to Rule 2, the Sessions Judge shall prepare a panel of pleaders consisting of not less than ten from among the pleaders in the Sessions Division, who have not less than five years standing at the Bar. The proviso enables the Sessions Judge, if occasion so warrants, and for reasons to be recorded, in writing by order, to requisition the services of a senior member of the Bar outside the panel and assign the brief to him. In all such cases, the Sessions Judge is required to send a copy of the order to the High Court. Rule 6 provides that in a trial before the court of Sessions, if the accused is not represented by a pleader and where it appears to the court that the accused has no sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Sessions Judge or the Assistant Sessions Judge outside the headquarters, as the case may be, shall assign a pleader from the panel for the defence of the accused, generally by rotation. Rule 9 states the fee payable to such counsel assigned for the defence of the accused. Rule 9 states the fee payable to such counsel assigned for the defence of the accused. Learned counsel for the second respondent contends that it is not open to the second respondent to appoint any counsel outside the panel and the only provision which enables the court to appoint a counsel outside the panel, is the proviso to Rule 2, According to him, that power can be exercised only by the Sessions Judge and it is not within the discretion of the Legal Aid Centre. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor draws our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajan Dwivedi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 624. The question raised before the court, was whether the ‘right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice’ under Art.22(l) of the Constitution comprehended the right of an accused to be supplied with a lawyer by the State. The contention was that the petitioner before the court had no means to engage a competent lawyer for his defence though he was not an indigent person and under the rules framed by the Delhi High Court, the fee fixed as payable to a lawyer appearing in the Court of Sessions as amicus curiae, was too meagre and no lawyer of substantial standing, will find it possible to appear as counsel for his defence for that fee. The court observed: “7. There can be no doubt that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of a writ of mandamus for the enforcement of the directive principle enshrined in Art.39-A by ordaining the Union of India to give financial assistance to him to engage a counsel of his choice on a scale equivalent to, or commensurate with, the fees that are being paid to the counsel appearing for the State. As is clear from the terms of Art. 39-A the social objective of equal justice and free legal aid has to be implemented by suitable legislation or by formulating schemes for free legal aid. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, lies by way of making an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sub-sec(1) of Sec.304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not by a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, lies by way of making an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sub-sec(1) of Sec.304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not by a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Referring to Art.22(1) of the Constitution and the interpretation given in Janardhan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 217: 1951 S.C.R. 344 and the subsequent cases, the court made a reference to Sec. 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. “9. Although in the earlier decisions the court paid scant regard to the directives on the ground that the courts had little to do with them, since they were not justifiable or enforceable, like the fundamental rights, the duty of the court in relation to the directives came to be emphasized in the later decisions which reached its culmination in Kesavanand Bharati v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1461: (1973)4 S.C.C. 225 , laying down certain broad propositions. One of these is that there is no disharmony between the directives and the fundamental rights because they supplement each other in aiming at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution and the establishment of a welfare State, which is envisaged in the preamble. The courts therefore have a responsibility in so interpreting the constitution as to ensure implementation of the directives and to harmonise the social objective underlying the directives with the individual rights. Primarily, the mandate in Art.39-A is addressed to the legislature and the executive, but insofar as the Courts of Justice can indulge in some judicial law making within the interestices of the Constitution or any statute before them for construction, the courts too are bound by this mandate..... 13-A. The Law Commission in its Forty-Eighth Report suggested for making provision for free legal assistance by the State for all accused who are undefended by a lawyer for want of means. The recommendation still remains to be implemented. Many a time, it may be difficult for the accused to find sufficient means to engage a lawyer of competence. In such a case, the court possesses the power to grant free legal aid if the interests of justice so require. The recommendation still remains to be implemented. Many a time, it may be difficult for the accused to find sufficient means to engage a lawyer of competence. In such a case, the court possesses the power to grant free legal aid if the interests of justice so require. The remedy of the petitioner therefore is to make an application before the Additional Sessions Judge making out a case for the grant of free legal aid and if the learned Additional Sessions Judge is satisfied that the requirements of Sub-sec. (1)of Sec. 304 of the Code are fulfilled, he may make necessary directions in that behalf." The court directed the Additional Sessions Judge to fix a fee having regard to the interim orders passed by that court. It was held in that case that no mandamus can be issued to the State in a matter of this kind. The court has pointed out that Sec.304, Criminal Procedure Code contains the relevant provision as contemplated by Arts. 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. 5. Thus, the relevant law on the subject has to be gathered from the provisions of Sec. 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1579, recognises the right of the accused to have a lawyer of his own choice and this case will fall within the scope of that judgment. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in that case. We do not find any reference to this aspect of the matter. There, the court has to deal with the protection of the prisoners inside the prison as against the high handed actions of the jail authorities and it gave several directions to the prison authorities. The Court also framed guidelines to frame rules for appropriate conduct of the petitioners. That case has no relevancy here. 7. Learned counsel draws our attention to the judgment of a Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 17132 of 1990. In that case, the prayer was for quashing the proceedings in a sessions case on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Poonamallee. The Bench observed that the prayer as such could not be entertained but they treated it as a petition for directions and proceeded to consider the contentions urged by the parties. In that case, the prayer was for quashing the proceedings in a sessions case on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Poonamallee. The Bench observed that the prayer as such could not be entertained but they treated it as a petition for directions and proceeded to consider the contentions urged by the parties. One of the contentions was that the lawyer appointed to defend the accused did not even attend the court during hearing thus depriving him of the right to be defended by a lawyer. Referring to that aspect of the matter, the Bench quoted the observations of the Supreme Court in Khatri v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 928. The Bench proceeded to refer to Sec. 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code and observed: "It seems it was only on account of the requirement of legal aid to accused at the State expenses under Sec.304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the Sessions Judge nominated a counsel from the junior panel as alleged by the petitioner to represent her in the trial. It is however stated in the affidavit that the lawyer nominated by the Sessions Judge for the defence of the petitioner never turned up at any hearing in the trial. Thus even this mandate of law as in Sec.304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remained unfulfilled." The Bench found that the accused did not have sufficient means to engage a counsel. It referred to the petitioner/accused’s choice of Mr.K.V. Sankaran, Senior counsel practising in this Court, to defend her in the trial. The Bench granted that request and nominated Mr. Sankaran as he consented to appear for the petitioner. Then the Bench proceeded to consider the fee payable to him and after referring to the judgment in Rajakumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1990 L.W. (Crl.) 521, fixed the fee for Mr. Sankaran, who agreed to appear for the petitioner in the sessions case. That judgment did not consider the question whether an accused can ignore the provisions of Sec.304 of the Criminal Procedure Code and approach this Court with a petition for issue of habeas corpus or any other relief for the purpose of getting a counsel nominated to defend him in the sessions case. Obviously, that question was not raised before the Bench. Obviously, that question was not raised before the Bench. Nor was it raised in the case before the Division Bench which decided Rajakumaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1990 L.W. (Crl.) 521. 8. We are of the view that as there is a specific provision under Sec.304 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under which rules have been framed for the purpose of assigning counsel to defend the accused in Sessions cases, the remedy under Art.226 of the Constitution is not available to the accused. According to the Section and Rules, it is for the Sessions Judge to assign the counsel. If the accused is not satisfied with the counsel or apprehends that the said counsel will not be able to defend him, properly, it is certainly open to the accused to make the request to the Sessions Judge to consider the appointment of some other counsel. In the affidavit of the petitioner, there is no doubt an allegation that he made a request to the Sessions Court, which did not countenance the same. Taking the allegation on the face value, we are going to give directions in this order to the Additional Sessions Judge. 9. We are of the view that the Code of Criminal Procedure is a self contained Code and the procedure prescribed therein for the purpose of nominating counsel to defend the accused, has to be followed. That cannot be ignored and the reason is quite plain. It is the Sessions Judge, who can take into account the facts of the case before him and choose an appropriate lawyer for the accused. No doubt as per the rules framed under Sec.304, Code of Criminal Procedure, the lawyer has to be chosen from the panel. But this is only a general rule. If the circumstances of the case warrant and if there is no lawyer in the panel competent to appear for the accused, it is open to the Sessions Judge, to nominate a lawyer invoking the provisions of the proviso to Rule 2. It is open to him to appoint a senior member of the bar. But there is no provision which provides that the accused can choose a lawyer from outside the district and insist upon such lawyer being assigned to him. It cannot be contended that the accused can choose a lawyer from anywhere in the country. It is open to him to appoint a senior member of the bar. But there is no provision which provides that the accused can choose a lawyer from outside the district and insist upon such lawyer being assigned to him. It cannot be contended that the accused can choose a lawyer from anywhere in the country. That is not the intention of the code or the rules at all. What all is contemplated by Arts.21 and 22 is that the accused must be represented by a competent lawyer so that he will have a fair trial. It is sufficient if the competent lawyer is chosen within the district. It cannot be stated in this case that there is no competent lawyer in the district, who can represent the accused. 10. An averment is made in the affidavit of the petitioner that no counsel from the District Legal Aid Centre, Salem, is coming forward to defend the petitioner’s case, as informed by the District Legal Aid Centre through Court. There is no allegation that no lawyer in the district is prepared to defend the accused. The Sessions Judge may verify whether any other lawyer in the panel prepared by the District Legal Aid Centre, is prepared and such lawyer is competent to defend the accused. If the Sessions Judge finds that there is no competent lawyer within the panel, it is open to him to appoint anybody outside the panel, invoking the provisions of the Proviso to Rule 2. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1548. In that case, a special leave petition was filed against the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court declared the legal position to put it beyond doubt. One of the matters declared, related to the right of the prisoner to have a lawyer to defend him. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus: "26.... 4. Where the prisoner is disabled from engaging a lawyer, on reasonable grounds such a indigence or incommunicado situation, the Court shall, if the circumstances of the case, the gravity of the sentence, and the ends of justice so require, assign competent counsel for the prisoner’s defence, provided the party does not object to that lawyer;...... 4. Where the prisoner is disabled from engaging a lawyer, on reasonable grounds such a indigence or incommunicado situation, the Court shall, if the circumstances of the case, the gravity of the sentence, and the ends of justice so require, assign competent counsel for the prisoner’s defence, provided the party does not object to that lawyer;...... Relying on that statement, learned counsel submits that it is open to the accused to object to any lawyer nominated to defend him and it is for him to choose the lawyer. It is submitted that he can choose a lawyer from anywhere in the country. We do not agree, The ruling in M.H.Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1548, has also been referred to by the Supreme Court in Ranjan Dwivedi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 624. The Supreme Court considered the question again the Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 991 and said; "5. It is now well established as a result of the decision of this Court in Hussainara Khatoon’s case, (1979) 3 S.C.R. 532 : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1369, that "the right to free legal service is clearly an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held to be implicit in the guar-antceofArt.21. This is a constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such a poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation and the state is under a mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so require, provided of course the accused person does not object to the provision of such lawyer.“This Court pointed out that it is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure to a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the court’s process that he should have legal service available to him.” In Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1991) 1 S.C.C. 286 , the Supreme Court has observed: “12.....The right to defence includes right to effective and meaningful defence at the trial. The poor accused cannot defend effectively and adequately. The poor accused cannot defend effectively and adequately. Assigning an experienced defence counsel to an indigent accused is a facet of fair procedure and an inbuilt right to liberty and life envisaged under Arts.14, 19and 21 of the Constitution....” 12. We do not find any merit in this petition. Hence we are dismissing the petition. However, we give liberty to the petitioner to make a request to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, for nominating any other counsel in the place of Mr.Narayanan, who has now been appointed for him. If a request is made, it is for the First Additional Sessions Judge to consider the same in accordance with the provisions of Sec.304 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the rules framed there under by the High Court and pass appropriate order.