Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Monday, December 23, 2024

Senior Lawyers Court Appearances Should Be Restricted

Posted in: Judiciary
Mon, May 17, 21, 12:43, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 7527
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.

It merits no reiteration that when one of the most eminent and senior lawyer of the Supreme Court who has a most distinguished track record and who is also a former Attorney General of India - Mukul Rohatgi says something on any point pertaining to lawyers, courts and judges then our law makers as also the judiciary must take a very serious note of it! It cannot be just glossed over. He speaks always most practically, pragmatically and pertinently as also powerfully which just cannot be ignored as he always talks sense and owes full responsibility for whatever he says on any given topic of law.
 
 While speaking with journalists, Mukul Rohatgi minced just no words to point out that there should be regulations to restrict the number of cases a senior advocate should argue in a day so that other lawyers may also get a piece of the pie. We all had seen earlier how Mukul Rohatgi during a recent hearing in the Supreme Court had strongly said that he would be the first one to support a rule that a senior advocate should be allowed to appear only in a limited number of cases on a daily basis. Absolutely right! This will certainly go a long way in ensuring that younger talent gets enough opportunity to showcase and exhibit their knowledge of law in different ways in different cases!
 
 While candidly speaking straight from his mind, the learned former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi waxed eloquent to rightly hold that, "I would very much support such a rule so that other lawyers may also get some more work. But the rule must be universally and uniformly applied to everyone. There are many clients who would want me to argue their cases and I will have to turn them away.
 
 But if this is applied across the board, there will be a lot of work for other people rather than this concentration that you have in the Supreme Court and in the high court where only a few lawyers get most of the work. This inequality and concentration of work will continue until there is freedom to make choice. But you can still have reasonable restrictions in the form of restricting the number of cases."
 
 On the query of should senior lawyers also impose some kind of a self regulation in this regard, Mukul Rohatgi made it absolutely clear that, "Unless there is a regulation, it becomes very difficult to bring a change. Even if I am supposed to do 10 cases in a day, I will have to return more than 10 cases. Self-regulation cannot serve the purpose since you will always have clients and their lawyers asking you to take their cases...
 
 They will ask how does it matter if you do 12 cases instead of 10 when you are in the court and can manage them."' So there can be no disputing the irrefutable
 On a serious note, Mukul Rohatgi had before the Supreme Court called it "an unfortunate aspect of the profession" that only a few lawyers are engaged in most of the cases involving high stakes and high monetary values. Rohatgi in his personal opinion while again underscoring the need to have regulations to redress this disparity stated succinctly in simple, suave and straight language that:
 This is a fact of life. This is not only in the legal profession but in most of the professions. Some doctors are hugely popular in the medical profession. Similarly, some lawyers are massively popular... Even in Bollywood, there is a group of film stars who are hugely popular... Reasons are many but these are facts of life. Situation is not ideal where everybody gets sufficient amount of work. This is something very difficult to get rid of as long as you have free world, free choice. This is why you need some regulation that have the binding effect."
 
 Absolutely right! There can be just no denying it!
 
 It would be imperative to also mention here that in the course of his address on 24 April, 2021 where Fali Sam Nariman who is world's top jurist and was the Chief Guest for an event hosted by the Society of Indian Law Firms (SlLF) to commemorate 60 years since the passage of the Advocates Act and which was moderated by President of the SILF - Lalit Bhasin, Fali Nariman made it a point to mention most eloquently, explicitly and effective that the system introduced by the Advocates Act replaced a system that had evolved in the Bombay Bar of senior lawyers voluntarily sacrificing areas of their practice so that the younger members of the Bar could gain a foothold.
 
 But now this is not seen anywhere. It is beyond comprehension and most baffling as to why this most exemplary, worth emulating and also most laudable practice was not encouraged later everywhere? It should certainly have been replicated all across the country uniformly and most promptly but alas that was not to be!
 
 While shedding even more light on this, Fali Sam Nariman then further went on to candidly concede that:
 In the mid 1950s, the complaint of then younger members of the Bombay Bar, some of us, was that the older members were cornering almost all the work on the original side where we practice... Fortunately seeing that younger members of the Bar were disappointed, a couple of wise and far sighted older advocates persuaded all lawyers then in practice on the original side for 25 years or more to go on an imaginary 'senior list', voluntary by choice - which meant that those on the senior list undertook no longer to appear in chamber matters or motions on the original side of the high court nor in interlocutory applications in suits and petitions. And the advantage was that it gave us younger entrants in the Bar a chace to prove ourselves and believe me, this worked.
 
 Needless to say, this certainly compels us to wonder that:
 When this can work in Bombay then why not all across the country?" Of course, for this to happen what was required was just firm commitment, firm resolve to promote younger members of the Bar and magnanimous approach as was remarkably and demonstrably shown by senior lawyers of Bombay!
 
 In other words, Nariman then waxed eloquent to explain that:
 This meant that senior lawyers were parting with such areas of practice as an act of sacrifice and not for a badge of fame or distinction.
 
 This was truly commendable and should have continued till now. But alas! That was not to be as the high standards that were set by senior members of the Bombay Bar as pointed out by Fali Sam Nariman was not followed later on!
 
 Quite lamentably, Fali Nariman then was at pains to point out that, "Unfortunately, the 61 Act has reversed this very healthy precedent." We all must note here that Fali Nariman then while taking the right moral stand frankly opined that, "I believe the voluntary system adopted by the Bombay Bar was better than the prescription in the Act, because it ensures the equality of opportunity amongst those practicing the law with a distinct weightage in favour of the junior bar." Nariman has a valid point!
 
 To conclude, it goes without saying that it is the bounden duty of our law makers to incorporate the requisite changes as has been so very sagaciously laid bare by two top jurists - Mukul Rohatgi and Fali Sam Nariman in the most elegant, eloquent and effective language. This will definitely not just boost the morale of younger generation lawyers as mentioned above but also enable them in coming out of the shadows of the senior lawyers which is bound to have a significant impact on their standing in the Bar.
 
 No doubt, what all has been suggested so commendably by Rohatgi and Nariman must be given effect to point by point immediately so that no one is treated unequally on any ground whatsoever! It is a no-brainer that this will certainly help in ensuring that our judicial system benefits immensely as a whole! Unquestionably, change is the law of progress and the time is quite ripe now to incorporate the changes which two top jurists have so commendably suggested! There can certainly be just no denying or disputing it!
 
 Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
 s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
 Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Rahendra Baglari v. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) writ petitioner for adjoining a Judicial Magistrate and the High Court and its Registry as Respondents to his plea against the order passed by the said Magistrate.
Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs.Uttarakhand long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from.
Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur apart from High Court at Mumbai but on the contrary UP which has maximum pending cases in India
It is most shocking to see that a peaceful, one of the most developed and most prosperous state like Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur
I am neither a member nor supporter of BJP or any other political party nor a member of any of BJP's affiliated organizations like the RSS or VHP or any other organization.
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. It was also made clear that any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases.
media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Jamal v. Maharashtra dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' category security.
Duroply Industries Limited and anr. Vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has recalled its own order of an injunction passed in a trademark dispute as the Judge presiding over the case had appeared for one party in respect of the same trademark in the past.
At the outset, it must be stated rather disconcertingly that it is India's misfortune that UP which has the maximum population more than 23 crore as Yogi Adityanath
At the outset, it has to be stated without mincing any words that it merits no reiteration that Judges age for retirement must be now increased to 75
Rajeev Bhardwaj v. H.P while dismissing a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
Adv KG Suresh vs UOI has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act).
Bar Council of India ensured that there is an entrance exam now for all those lawyers who want to practice which has to be cleared before lawyers can start practicing.
It is a matter of grave concern that while our Constitution enshrines the right to equality as postulated in Article 14 but in practice what we witness is just the reverse.
seeking interim bail/parole for the under-privileged and under-trial prisoners/convicts keeping in view the terrible havoc unleashed by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
When an intellectual giant like Fali Sam Nariman whom I personally rate as the world's top jurist and it is not just me but his extremely impeccable credentials are acknowledged in legal field, it is not just India but the whole world which listens to him in silence
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Committee to suggest reforms in our criminal justice system which has been facing repeated criticism for its various drawbacks
Congress government's rule in Centre, Kapil Sibal who was Union Law Minister had written very categorically to UP Government for creating a high court bench for West UP at Meerut
completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession
Thabir Sagar vs Odisha the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules. It has therefore rightly directed its Registry to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits
COVID situation in UP, the Allahabad High Court has issued revised fresh guidelines for the functioning of all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it.
amended its rules to make criticism and attack of Bar Council decisions by members a misconduct and ground for disqualification or suspension or removal of membership of a member from the Bar Council.
CJI NV Ramana who was appointed as the 48th CJI on 6th April, 2021 and took oath as CJI on 24th April 2021 has very rightly expressed his concern on the social media noise and how it adversely impacts the institutions also like judiciary to a great extent which actually should not be the case.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
Why UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population more than 24 crore which is more than even Pakistan
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicial system at the lower levels, there is reluctance to make such finances available.
rarely ever booked and made to face the consequences which only serves to further encourage men in uniform to take it for granted to indulge in worst custodial torture
Tarun Saxena vs Union of India as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals
Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence.
Suman Chadha & Anr. vs. Central Bank of India in that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.
Arun Singh Chauhan v/s MP deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party
Dr.Mukut Nath Verma vs UoI Allahabad High Court imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on an advocate Dr Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court.
Anil JS vs Kerala that instances of allegations about the police disrespecting the citizens were arriving at its doors with alarming regularity and therefore issued certain general directions in its judgment.
If there is one Judge on whom I have blind faith for his exemplary conduct throughout his brilliant career and who can never favour wrongly even his own son
Indianisation of our legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective.
the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice.
It is not just for enjoying life or going for some holiday trip that lawyers of West UP repeatedly keep going on strike since last many decades.
CM Yogi Adityanath UP has progressed by leaps and bounds which one certainly cannot deny but why is it that it has just one High Court Bench only and that too just approximately 200 km away at the city famously called Nawab City
Just changing name of Allahabad to Prayagraj won't change the ground reality. It is a proven fact that High Court is still called Allahabad High Court and not Prayagraj High Court.
It is most shocking that all the Chief Justices of India from 1947 till 2000 were never shocked nor were any world famous jurist like Nani Ardeshir Palkhiwala, Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan among many others
Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra vs UP has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice – SP Singh Baghel who is also an MP from Agra again in Western UP and who just recently took over has made it clear that his ministry was open to the setting up of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western UP.
Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Amit that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients and also as advocates in the matter, is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Shashank Singh vs/ Honourable High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
It must be stated at the very outset that it is quite bewildering and baffling to see that the state of UP which Ban ki moon who is the former UN Secretary General had slammed as the rape and crime capital of India
most powerfully raised vocally the legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also.
Top