Senior Professionals Should Care For The Budding Ones: HC

Senior Professionals Should Care For The Budding Ones: HC

The Delhi High Court has at last, hit the bull’s eye. Dealing with a PIL filed by one, Pankaj Kumar against Bar Council of Delhi and others

The Delhi High Court has at last, hit the bull's eye. Dealing with a PIL filed by one, Pankaj Kumar against Bar Council of Delhi and others, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramon Prasad appealed to the senior members of all professionals, such as law, accountancy, medicine, engineering, architecture etc; " to ensure that the stipend that is paid to their juniors is enough for their juniors to evade the financial stress that accompanies the profession and allow them to lead a more dignified life."

Adding that so far as the legal profession is concerned the senior lawyers must be more mindful about the financial background of their juniors and called for an empathetic approach considering the 'virtuosity of legal profession.' Expressing concern for junior professionals the High Court observed that the job opportunities were far too many which makes the competition arduous and the services of an individual dispensable.

The petitioner had voiced his grievance before the court stating that young lawyers are unable to arrange for their accommodation, food, travelling and other expenses due to lack of proper and consistent source of income, and therefore, a direction was sought to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Delhi for providing a financial assistance of Rs.5,000 to the newly enrolled advocates during the initial years of practice. Though the court took judicial notice of the plight of the young advocates it declined to stretch the matter to encompass as a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and left the matter to the Bar Council of India and bar associations of the country to find ways and means to mitigate the plight of the junior professions.

Indeed, the plight of the junior professionals in almost all fields is pathetic. To acquire specialised knowledge in a particular field besides relentless efforts and merit, a good deal of financial, social and personal loss has to be borne by a professional in making. Such budding professionals need assurance of a bright future despite the fact that there has been a mad race for achieving glory between the giants as well as pigmies. There has been no level playing field and added to that is a strong cartelisation which vehemently resists the entry of newcomers in the select few clubs.

By the hindsight, a thought must also be given to the necessity of designating a chosen few as "Seniors" in the profession. This practice being discriminatory and divisive deserves to be abandoned at once. It not only leads to over-burdening a litigant who has also to pay for the juniors but creates the feeling of supremacy of such designated seniors over juniors. One fails to understand when all advocates are regarded as the 'Officers' of courts, albeit sans monetary reward and all of them sail in the same boat, where is the need to create barriers among them.

In fact, a young professional is better equipped with the latest development in his respective field and better trained in the use of latest technology. Therefore, except the younger age, nothing goes against him vis-à-vis his elder counterpart. Further, there is no reason to blindly believe that all that is old, is gold. The history, including the recent, has been replete with intellectually immature, temperamentally unpalatable or short-tempered and money-wise exceedingly greedy for the self and thoroughly miser for juniors, seniors who deserve to be discarded sooner than later. If that is done by the decision makers, we would be able to get rid of the browbeating lawyer-mafia forcing the opening of gates of the Supreme Court in the midnight in a bid to save the life of a condemned gangster, threatening the judges of dire consequences, levelling baseless and defamatory charges of corruption on all and sundry in the judiciary, including the Chief Justice of India, indulging in the rhetoric of 'I will hang my gown' and subsequently wearing again and what not.


In an important judgment, the Madras High Court has held that a citizen's fundamental right to life and personal liberty do not cease to exist merely because he or she was imprisoned, convicted or detained. In other words, the police or investigating agencies from now on, will have to behave in a civilised manner and not treating the imprisoned, convicted or detained person as the helpless creatures at their mercy.

In a case titled, Manokaran Vs. State and Others. A bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice A D Jagdish Chandra where two women branded as bootleggers were kept in preventive detention illegally for four months and for their release a habeas corpus writ petition was filed, the court observed that under Article 21 of the Constitution, a citizen's right to life and personal liberty have been guaranteed and the same can be deprived of only in accordance with the procedure established by law. The court while ordering the immediate release of the two women from the police captivity, also directed the Tamil Nadu government to pay Rs 5 lakh each.


The National Green Tribunal (NGT) on September 22 imposed the Environmental Compensation of Rs. 2,180 crore on the State of Punjab for failing to treat solid and liquid waste.

A three-member bench presided over by Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel said that it was a matter of concern that even after 48 years after the passing of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and expiry of statutory timelines under Solid Waste Management Rules, gaps continued to plague waste management in the State.

The NGT order comes in the wake of Supreme Court's directions in Almitra H Patel Vs. Union of India & Others and Paryavaran Suraksha Vs. Union of India which directed the NGT to monitor enforcement of solid and liquid waste management norms.

Interestingly, Punjab is the fifth state after Maharashtra, West Bengal, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh to have been fined for improper waste management by the NGT in the recent past.


The 8th woman Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Indira Banerjee retired on September 23. A farewell function was organised in the court with the Chief Justice of India, Justice U.U Lalit as the chief guest. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Vikas Singh and Attorney General of India K.K Venugopal praised services of Justice Banerjee.Justice Banerjee in her farewell address exhorted the junior lawyers to be professional, fully ready and helping in timely delivery of quality justice.

Show Full Article
Print Article
Next Story
More Stories