NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that a second line of lawyers is missing in the top court and every senior advocate having over 20 years of experience must guide at least 15 junior lawyers.
A vacation bench of justices Ajay Rastogi and BV Nagarathna said that senior advocates of the Supreme Court can devise some modalities to train the junior lawyers in court-craft and etiquettes.
The observations came during the hearing of a matter in which the bench said, "The second line of lawyers is missing. We want the young generation of legal profession to be groomed and by the time the older generation is old and wants to quit, the young generation is ready. At present there is a gap in this. Every senior lawyer who has more than 20 years of experience in the bar must undertake to train and guide at least 15 junior lawyers of which five will at least come up to the mark."
Justice Rastogi said that this gap has to be filled in a very short period of time and some modalities need to be devised to nurture the young lawyers.
"The system should continue in the same manner as it is continuing. This is the last court in the country. Things need to be settled as early as possible," the bench said.
The remarks of the top court holds importance as it had on Monday told senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi that more opportunities should be given to the junior lawyers during court vacations.
It had asked Singhvi to appear physically and instead of appearing virtually to argue his case.
Singhvi, appearing in the matter physically on Tuesday, said that there should be a uniform rule with regard to senior advocates' appearances in matters during vacations.
The bench said that the point is it does not want any kind of injustice to be done to anybody.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, who was also present in the court recalled her experience and said that they have been beneficiary of this kind of system in the court during her initial years at the bar.
"When I had come in, only juniors were allowed to mention the matters. Juniors were encouraged to appear and they must appear. However, if they face any difficulty, the bench would not dismiss their case but should give them an opportunity to come back prepared maybe after the vacation or on the next date of hearing," she said.
The bench said that it is not the problem as it would not allow any kind of injustice to happen to anybody.
Justice Nagarathna told both Singhvi and Arora that even the Bar Council of India (BCI) can have a lecture series for junior lawyers on various aspects of advocacy including court-craft and court etiquettes during vacations.
"You all have so much experience and have appeared before so many judges, why can't you all have a lecture series organised for young minds of the profession. They can learn a lot from these kinds of series," Justice Nagarathna said.
Last month, the Bar Council of India in an affidavit filed in a matter related to reforms in legal education and placements of young lawyers before another bench of the top court, had said that it is constituting a high powered committee that would look into the issue of compulsory chamber placement of five juniors by senior advocates or advocates having 25 years of standing at the Bar.
The council had said it is proposed that the legal education committee of the BCI and the advisory board would consider introducing a State Level Entrance Test for admissions to law colleges in its next meeting.
However, the suggestion of BCI on placement of junior lawyers did not find favour with the amicus curiae senior advocate KV Vishwanathan who had said making the placement of junior lawyers compulsory by senior advocates may hit the hurdle of the constitutional validity of such a step.
He had suggested that it would be more appropriate if such a process is incentivised like senior lawyers would be preferred in chamber allotment, empanelment for PSUs, appointment in the judiciary and contesting bar elections.
He said that taking five juniors may not be feasible and one junior will be sufficient.
"At least start with one junior, no one wants five juniors. Make it for 18 months; he will be paid a stipend. Keeping a junior makes your performance better. In this profession, no one can do everything all by himself," Vishwanathan had contended before a bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.