An advocate is deemed to have graduated in law from a law college or university in our country. He is not supposed to be a graduate in typewriting or shorthand! It is unwritten practice amongst the gentlemen senior advocates that they are committed in moulding their junior advocates in their initial years to the professional life while inducting them to their office.
But, such selfless senior advocates are very rare to meet the eyes nowadays! The majority of selfish senior advocates are belied that the right to practice law is the genus of which the typewriting and shorthand must be a specie! It is very disgusting. Should the junior advocates keep their mouth shut for such senior advocates?
The ambition of a junior advocate to practice law is curtailed, if he or she joins a senior advocate office wherein a permanent typist does not exist. A junior advocate has a lot of acts to be performed towards discharge of his/her professional commitments than merely siting typing in the law office.
The right to practice law has been recognised and granted by Section 30 of the Advocates Act. A person who has obtained a degree of law is entitled to practice law just as any senior advocate. But senior advocates often thrust upon typewriting and shorthand on aspiring junior advocates without giving them proper guidance and advise on law practice.
This blogger appraises and respects each and every jobs regardless of its impact and influence in the society without any underestimations whatsoever! But, having said that, hiring a junior advocate, without having scant regard to his or her aspiration to law practice is arbitrary and selfish and those senior advocates are mainly concerned with their own needs or wishes at the expense of consideration of junior advocates.
The junior advocates are in aid of their senior advocates in the Supreme Court, High Courts, Subordinate Courts, Tribunals or Other Authorities. The right to practice and the right to appear in courts are two different things, which all aspiring advocates wish to cherish in their minds.
If a junior advocate shall not be permitted to practice in court by a senior advocate, when a junior advocate wants to appear in a court. Which is solely determined by the Bar Council, and not by a mere senior advocate. Refusal by a senior advocate to permit a junior advocate to appear before court does amount to extinction of the advocate’s legal entity as an advocate.
The advocates are to be the only recognised class of persons entitled to practice law. Every advocate whose name is entered in the state roll shall be entitled the right to practice throughout the territories to which the Advocates Act, 1961 extends. Advocates alone entitled to practice, no person shall, on or after the appointed day, be entitled to practice in any court or before any authority or person unless he or she enrolled as an advocate under the said Act.
The advocates are persons who are supposed to be the guardian of rule of law, as they have to advise the public at large in regard to the legal rights and obligations, maintenance of law and order and rule of law. The public view the advocates as men of knowledge, integrity and persons upholding the rule of law. The society had always viewed the profession of advocacy (not typography) as eminent and dignified. But, unfortunately, some senior advocate do ignore it.
It is true that the rule framed by the Bar Council of India does not make out any distinction in dress or prescribe the design of a different gown or coat for a senior advocate, yet the distinction has been maintained and followed by a practice of long-standing, even prior to the Advocates Act of 1961.
The distinction between the senior advocates and advocates is that provides for right of pre audience for senior advocates among others. The senior advocates constitute a different class within the advocates. Based on the ability, knowledge, experience, expertise and standing at the bar, an advocate is designated as a senior advocate. It is an honor and distinction conferred by the court in recognition of the ability and standing of the concerned advocate.
Debarring junior advocates from appearing before court is unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution. I would be failing in my duty if I do not mention about one decision of the Supermen Court in Satish Kumar Sharma v. Bar Council of H.P.,[(2001)2 SCC 365]: (AIR 2001 SC 509), the Supreme Court had occasion to make the following observations:
“The profession of law is called a noble profession. It does not remain noble merely by calling it as such, unless there is a continued, corresponding and expected performance of a noble profession. Its nobility has to be preserved, protected and promoted. An institution cannot survive on its name or on its past glory alone. The glory and greatness of an institution depends on its continued and meaningful performance with grace and dignity. The profession of law being noble and an honourable one, it has to continue its meaningful, useful and purposeful performance inspired by and keeping in view the high and rich traditions consistent with its grace, dignity, utility and prestige. Hence the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under inter alia aimed to achieve the same ought to be given effect to in their true letter and spirit to maintain clean and efficient Bar in the country to serve the cause of justice which again is a noble one.”
