Post

@advocate_alakh

@advocate_alakh

@advocate_alakh

@advocate_alakh

@MPKTSTulsi

@MPKTSTulsi

@advocate_alakh

@anubha1812

More from @barandbench

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jul 28

#SupremeCourt begins hearing the batch of petitions challenging the reinstatement of the three-year minimum practice requirement for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Senior Advocate Pinky Anand: if this happens then good people will not enter the profession. Women will not come.

We have suggestions... Selected candidates undergoing training for the post of Civil Judge may be attached, for a specified period, to designated Senior Advocates, Government Pleaders, Advocates General, Standing Counsel, and Assistant Legal Aid Defence Counsel under the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) Scheme, 2022.

A similar system has been adopted in Germany, where a candidate aspiring to judicial office must complete a university law degree followed by preparatory training under Section 5b of the German Judiciary Act, 1932. The training lasts for two years and includes placements in civil courts, criminal courts, public prosecution offices and other legal institutions.

At present, State Judicial Academies follow different induction and training systems. There is a need for a uniform national training framework, either through the National Judicial Academy or a permanent committee headed by the Chief Justice of India as ex officio Chairperson, to continuously develop and standardise training modalities for the subordinate judiciary.

We have also suggested reforms in legal education, including:

Optional, structured six-month practice modules during the three-year and five-year law degree programmes;

Specialised degree courses for judicial aspirants to identify, train and expose them to high-quality judicial education from the university stage itself. One such example is the BA LL.B. (Adjudication and Justicing) programme offered by an MNLU.

It is imperative that this issue is flagged. Ultimately, the merit, competence and ability of a Civil Judge are of concern to both the Bar and the Bench.

Accordingly, it is suggested that Civil Judges (Junior Division) be provided scholarships, administrative leave for higher legal education and specialisation, both in India and abroad, as well as opportunities for exchange programmes, placements and deputation.

Sr Adv Anand: We have to bring the judges at the correct age.

Sr Adv Colin Gonsalves: Our compilation demonstrates that the three-year practice requirement is not necessary. I also deal with the expansion of judicial academies. By 2026, almost every State, barring a few smaller ones, has a full-fledged State Judicial Academy. The time is therefore ripe to train judges after they graduate from law schools. Instead, we are sending fresh graduates back into litigation for three years.
Then there is an an article by a former Director of the National Judicial Academy. In paragraph 13, he recommends replacing the three-year practice requirement with a mandatory, intensive induction training programme.
The compilation also addresses judicial education in collaboration with universities. It refers to the University of Virginia model and, subsequently, the French model, both of which emphasise collaboration between judicial academies and universities.
Another suggestion is to adopt experiential learning from the very beginning through legal aid work, clerkships and internships, coupled with continuous evaluation, accountability mechanisms and holistic judicial training.
The compilation also sets out the views of the National Law Universities. I believe the learned Amicus' presentation may not have fully reflected them. ...National Law Universities and leading law schools across the country consistently recommend against retaining the three-year practice rule.
Now on deal with judicial vacancies. Higher Judicial Service examinations continue to witness a significant number of vacancies across the country. The data also shows that only around 20% of graduates from National Law Universities enter litigation. The experience of the NLUs is that retaining the three-year practice requirement discourages graduates from leading law schools from opting for judicial service.
The compilation also refers to a speech by former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, where he observed that very few graduates from National Law Schools are interested in joining litigation.

Read 7 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jul 25

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in his key note address at the Justice G.P. Singh 4th Memorial Lecture at the National Law University at Bhopal said:

Though I am a part of the Supreme Court, I am an insider. I am critical of the functioning of the Supreme Court to a great extent, and I don't mince my words. Perhaps for this reason, some are not happy, but leave it at that.

#JusticeUjjalBhuyan #SupremeCourt

Justice Bhuyan: In a span of over 25 years, this university has established itself as a center of learning and excellence. It has done commendably well, for which the faculty and the students deserve all the praise. But one word I would like to put in: This university has done exceptionally well, there are many universities which are doing well. The question is, where do Indian universities stand today on a global comparison? Why is it that people with means, the first thing they do is to send their students, to send their children abroad? Why? We need to ask this.

#JusticeUjjalBhuyan #SupremeCourt

Justice Bhuyan: The other day I was invited by another National Law University for the induction program of the new batch of students. I requested the university that "Allow the students to be themselves, encourage their inquisitiveness."
Students should be encouraged to question. Unless we question, unless students question, they will only be parroting the texts, and they will become like a captive audience.
Captive audience, I say, when a high court judge speaks, the district judges are there, the district judiciary, the judges of the tribal judiciary are there and they are not questioned. Everything is being asked or everything being said is being lapped up. So our students need to be critical, need to question, including the judiciary.

#JusticeUjjalBhuyan #SupremeCourt

Read 31 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jul 23

Sonam Raghuvanshi case: Supreme Court to shortly resume hearing the State of Meghalaya’s plea seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Sonam by the High Court.

Bench: Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale

Sonam is accused for the murder of her husband Raja Raghuvanshi during their honeymoon last year. She was granted bail by a trial court, which was upheld by the High Court.

Read here:

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

On the last hearing, the top court suggested Sonam to surrender while the trial court records evidence of key prosecution witnesses.

Read here:

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

Read 23 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jul 20

Delhi High Court to hear the appeal filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging a single judge order rejecting her plea to discharge Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital and transfer to Medanta Hospital.

The matter is listed before Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia.

From the government's side, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, ASG Chetan Sharma and standing counsel Ashish Dixit will appear.
Senior advocate Akhil Sibal is likely to appear on behalf of Angmo.

Read 41 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jul 20

Can a law graduate be denied enrollment as an advocate merely because there is a pending criminal case against them? Supreme Court hears

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and R Mahadevan

The case concerns KR Sudersan, a Chartered Accountant by profession who also completed his law degree. When he applied to enroll as an advocate, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry rejected his application. The Bar Council cited a pending criminal case against him involving Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Bar Council's rejection was rooted in a 2017 judgment by the Madras High Court. That order had directed Bar Councils to prevent the enrollment of law graduates with pending criminal cases. It was intended to be a "temporary measure" to keep people with criminal backgrounds out of the profession until the legislature amended the laws.

Read 8 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jul 20

Supreme Court hears plea by Delhi Police against Delhi High Court’s decision to allow Devangana Kalita, an accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case, to inspect the unrelied documents in malkhana - a secure storage room or warehouse inside a police station where physical evidence and seized properties are stored.

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi

ASG SV Raju (for Delhi Police): inspection is not warranted. She is not entitled to any documents till the charges are framed. What is the purpose of inspection at this stage? This is unrelied upon documents. I’ve got extracts of judgements on this point. Only prosecution documents are to be looked at.

Raju: please have a look at the Sarla Gupta judgement. Trial starts after charges are framed. Before commencement of trial they have no right to inspect. Trial has not started now. Suppose she is discharged, where’s the question of inspection?

Read 8 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Bar and Bench

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @barandbench

Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!