Report Wire - Whether any research executed concerning variety of attorneys wanted, asks SC 

Report Wire

News at Another Perspective

Whether any research executed concerning variety of attorneys wanted, asks SC 

6 min read
SC seeks Centre, J&K's response on plea challenging delimitation exercise 

By PTI

NEW DELHI: Whether any research has been executed concerning the variety of attorneys wanted within the nation, requested the Supreme Court on Tuesday whereas advocating that some research must be executed, possibly by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The research will assist to see what’s the energy of attorneys which is required optimally wanting into the pendency and the variety of circumstances the courts can take up throughout the nation, the apex court docket stated.

“How many lawyers does the country need?” the bench noticed, including that a whole lot of advocates are with none substantial work.

“Are we producing too many lawyers? Are we producing less lawyers? Some study needs to be done, maybe by the Bar Council or some authority to see that looking to the pendency looking to how many cases the court is able to take up across the country, what is the strength of lawyers there should be optimally,” stated a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S Ok Kaul.

The bench, additionally comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, A S Oka, Vikram Nath, and J Ok Maheshwari, was contemplating questions, together with whether or not a pre-enrollment examination may be prescribed by the BCI underneath the Advocates Act, 1961, which have been known as a five-judge bench.

When the problem concerning the revenue of attorneys, particularly in rural or district or Taluka stage cropped up throughout the listening to, the bench noticed that such a research might assist the Bar Council in figuring out the extent of examination additionally.

“So, ideally, if work was reasonably done, how many lawyers do you need to assist the system,” the highest court docket noticed.

“Is it required to have so lenient examination? Is it better to have a little more tailored examination where the difficulty level is slightly more? It will be assisted by this data which you may have,” it stated.

Attorney General Ok Ok Venugopal, who was earlier requested by the apex court docket to help it as an amicus within the matter earlier than he turned the highest regulation officer of the nation, stated he finds that persistently, Acts after Acts which have been handed or committees which have gone into this matter, the Law Commission report, says that examination is important.

Venugopal additionally referred to how recognition of a number of regulation schools was earlier withdrawn in a single day. He stated it was executed as a result of these schools have been sub-standard. Venugopal stated a minimal uniform customary must be maintained by the regulation colleges.

The listening to within the matter would proceed on Wednesday.

The apex court docket in March 2016 noticed that one of many questions which were raised for willpower was whether or not the BCI is competent to prescribe an examination post-enrollment of an advocate as a situation of eligibility for his persevering with to observe on the Bar.

“An incident question that arises is whether pre-enrolment training in terms of the Bar Council Training Rules, 1995 framed under section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is within the competence of the Bar Council of India and whether the decision of this court in Sudeer vs Bar Council of India & Anr…holding pre-enrolment training to be beyond the competence of the Bar Council needs reconsideration,” it had famous in its March 2016 order.

The apex court docket had stated that the questions that fall for willpower are of appreciable significance affecting the authorized career typically and have to be authoritatively answered by a Constitution bench.

It referred to a few questions, together with whether or not pre-enrolment coaching when it comes to Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 framed underneath part 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, might be validly prescribed by the BCI and in that case whether or not the choice in Sudeer vs Bar Council of India & Anr requires reconsideration, for consideration by a five-judge bench.

NEW DELHI: Whether any research has been executed concerning the variety of attorneys wanted within the nation, requested the Supreme Court on Tuesday whereas advocating that some research must be executed, possibly by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The research will assist to see what’s the energy of attorneys which is required optimally wanting into the pendency and the variety of circumstances the courts can take up throughout the nation, the apex court docket stated.

“How many lawyers does the country need?” the bench noticed, including that a whole lot of advocates are with none substantial work.

“Are we producing too many lawyers? Are we producing less lawyers? Some study needs to be done, maybe by the Bar Council or some authority to see that looking to the pendency looking to how many cases the court is able to take up across the country, what is the strength of lawyers there should be optimally,” stated a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Justice S Ok Kaul.

The bench, additionally comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, A S Oka, Vikram Nath, and J Ok Maheshwari, was contemplating questions, together with whether or not a pre-enrollment examination may be prescribed by the BCI underneath the Advocates Act, 1961, which have been known as a five-judge bench.

When the problem concerning the revenue of attorneys, particularly in rural or district or Taluka stage cropped up throughout the listening to, the bench noticed that such a research might assist the Bar Council in figuring out the extent of examination additionally.

“So, ideally, if work was reasonably done, how many lawyers do you need to assist the system,” the highest court docket noticed.

“Is it required to have so lenient examination? Is it better to have a little more tailored examination where the difficulty level is slightly more? It will be assisted by this data which you may have,” it stated.

Attorney General Ok Ok Venugopal, who was earlier requested by the apex court docket to help it as an amicus within the matter earlier than he turned the highest regulation officer of the nation, stated he finds that persistently, Acts after Acts which have been handed or committees which have gone into this matter, the Law Commission report, says that examination is important.

Venugopal additionally referred to how recognition of a number of regulation schools was earlier withdrawn in a single day. He stated it was executed as a result of these schools have been sub-standard. Venugopal stated a minimal uniform customary must be maintained by the regulation colleges.

The listening to within the matter would proceed on Wednesday.

The apex court docket in March 2016 noticed that one of many questions which were raised for willpower was whether or not the BCI is competent to prescribe an examination post-enrollment of an advocate as a situation of eligibility for his persevering with to observe on the Bar.

“An incident question that arises is whether pre-enrolment training in terms of the Bar Council Training Rules, 1995 framed under section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is within the competence of the Bar Council of India and whether the decision of this court in Sudeer vs Bar Council of India & Anr…holding pre-enrolment training to be beyond the competence of the Bar Council needs reconsideration,” it had famous in its March 2016 order.

The apex court docket had stated that the questions that fall for willpower are of appreciable significance affecting the authorized career typically and have to be authoritatively answered by a Constitution bench.

It referred to a few questions, together with whether or not pre-enrolment coaching when it comes to Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 framed underneath part 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, might be validly prescribed by the BCI and in that case whether or not the choice in Sudeer vs Bar Council of India & Anr requires reconsideration, for consideration by a five-judge bench.