Supreme Court Demands Explanation from State Bar Councils for Failing to List Mentor Lawyers
Last Updated on September 23, 2024 by Amit Patra
In a bid that may well reform the pattern of internship for young lawyers, the Supreme Court has cracked down on defaulting State Bar Councils for having violated a vital educational rule. The action of the apex court shows determination in the continuing battle to make better opportunities for aspiring law students to get work experience.
A division bench headed by Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar has ordered the State Bar Councils, which have failed to comply with the directions, to file affidavits explaining the reasons for their failure to publish the lists of senior lawyers willing to mentor law students during vacations. This development is in furtherance of a PIL from 2022 wherein the condition of law students who did not have powerful connections in securing relevant internships was brought into focus.
The direction of the court was about Rule 26 of Schedule III to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, which stipulates preparation of district-wise rosters by the State Bar Councils of senior counsels with at least 10 years of experience who are willing to guide the internee, and thereafter, the publication and circulation of the same by the Bar Council of India for the benefit of the students in need of an internship.
The PIL said non-publication of such mentor lists has “caused immense loss to the legal fraternity,” and the students were “forced to beg before the lawyers” for work experience. This situation, particularly disadvantages students without established connections in the legal field.
The action by the Supreme Court follows a series of steps since October 2022, including issuance of notices to the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils. Despite an assurance by the BCI in March 2023 that such lists were being prepared, large numbers of State Bar Councils have not acted on this so far. The present order allows the defaulting councils 12 weeks time for filing their affidavits and posted the hearing for January 2025.
This development is important on a number of counts. Firstly, it addresses the historic and glaring inequality in access to internships that form part of a law student’s professional training. It is also a reflection of the judiciary acting to enforce laws that have been enacted to ensure equitable legal education. Finally, it places pressure on the various Bar Councils to take seriously their role in facilitating students’ internships.
The warning by the court that if this is continued, costs will be imposed shows the seriousness with which it views the matter. This case may result in a better internship system for law students on an All-India basis, as the courts wait for responses from the State Bar Councils, making entry into the profession on a more equal footing.
