The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its utter disappointment over the unwillingness of younger lawyers to learn the craft of legal practice at the grassroot level by practicing in trial courts.
The Bench of Justice Bhatti and Justice Prasanna B Varale made the oral observation while hearing the petition of a convict serving a 10-year sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, whose appeal against conviction was pending before the Allahabad High Court.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the High Court had earlier denied parole to the convict on the grounds that a 45-day parole had already been granted in September 2024 for the surgery of his wife.
He clarified that the surgery could not be performed during that period due to the low haemoglobin levels of the petitioner’s wife. The Bench that the surgical procedure has now been rescheduled for June 16.
Despite this, when the petitioner approached the High Court again seeking parole, his request was dismissed, he added.
The Counsel sought parole on the grounds that after the petitioner’s wife undergoes surgery, the couple’s young children will require care during her recovery.
Noting that the proper procedure had not been followed, the Bench said the petitioner should have first approached the relevant administrative authority and that the counsel for the petitioner ought to have informed the State’s lawyer in advance.
Noting that normal procedure was to first apply before the authorities, convince them of the pressing reason and obtain parole, the Apex Court, however, granted one-week parole from June 15 to 21, 2025.
When the petitioner’s counsel requested the Bench to extend the relief for two weeks, Justice Bhatti said that it was only on the insistence of his colleague on the Bench that he had agreed to grant parole in the first place, implying that he would have otherwise dismissed the plea.
The lawyer then asked the Court whether he could approach the authorities during the one-week parole period to seek an extension.
The top court of the country clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to file an appropriate application before the concerned authorities, and if necessary, return to the Court thereafter when the matter is heard next.
While the Apex Court was dictating the order, the lawyer started walking away. This irked the Bench and it observed that the younger generation did not want to learn the court craft. While reading cases constituted only 30 percent of the legal profession, the rest 70 percent was the craft of legal practice.
The post Young lawyers unwilling to learn legal craft: Supreme Court appeared first on India Legal.