Do we really need law-studied advocates?

Today, the court corridors and Bar Association rooms are agog with heated discussion on the belated revelation that out of 15 lakhs and odd “advocates” in the country, only about 6 lakh have opted for verification of their educational and professional practice certificates.

The central focus, thus, has been as to what about remaining more than 9-lakh advocates? Are they genuine advocates or fake as has been largely doubted? Or, are there any ‘real’ constraints that have excluded a vast majority from submitting their certificates to the Bar Council for verification? If so, what are these constraints?

Indeed, it would be too presumptuous to dub a vast majority of the advocates on the roll of different State Bar Council as fake or bogus just because they have not submitted their documents for verification. Indeed, there may be a few black sheep among the gigantic majority of plus 9 lakhs who might have forged their law degree and got themselves enrolled as advocates. But then, what should be their number? One lakh, two lakhs, three lakhs? Okay, but certainly not 9 lakhs or more.

Then, what may be the reasons for the default by such a huge majority not opting for the mandatory verification? The reasons could be many. First, there is a good number of advocates who after enrolment have not at all appeared in courts or if at all they have practised law, they have opted out due to one reason or the other without informing the concerned Bar Council. Second, some advocates whose names are on the live scroll may be living in other countries and are not aware of the verification exercise. Third, some of them might have become too old or sick or died making it almost impossible to have their certificates verified. Fourth, many a practising lawyer might have just ignored the call of the BCI to get their certificates verified taking it too lightly and last but not the least, there could be a large number of advocates whose certificates may have been lost, stolen, misplaced or destroyed due to a variety of reasons.

While it is true that the Bar Council of India has the onerous responsibility of maintaining high professional standards of advocacy, it is also equally true that not all of 6-lakh ‘verified’ advocates have obtained their law degree by burning midnight oil. In fact, it is an open secret that until about a decade ago, taking admission in the law college was considered as a last resort for the unworthy less meritorious students. Today, also there is a vast majority of the advocates who in private circles admit that they never had bothered to attend law classes. When the examinations come some of them prepare themselves on ‘war- footing’ for the examinations and indeed, pass with flying colours. The LAWCET was introduced much later. Perhaps, barring a handful of Law Universities and Law Schools and a few prestigious universities the picture is quite frightening. When we say that the lawyers are the agents of justice or they are the backbone of our Constitution, what we mean impliedly is the ‘genuine’ lawyers, the lawyers who have studied well, attended at least 75 per cent of lectures and written examinations honestly without indulging in malpractices.

Then what could be the way-out? Should we debar all these plus 9 lakhs defaulters at one stroke? Should we extend the time limit for submitting the certificates for verification? Or, should we condone them, at least selectively, say those who could show the proof of being in active practice for a minimum of five or ten years? Certainly, taking drastic action of removing all the 9 lakhs and odd defaulters is not a practical solution because it would add to the miseries of the litigant public and create a sort of vacuum in the court proceedings. As it is, there is a great dearth of advocates in the country and striking off the names of such a huge figure would almost bring the court work to a standstill. Second option of extending the time is also not preferable since this option has already been exercised earlier without much result.

Therefore, the only viable solution to such a piquant situation seems to be the third option: condoning the defaulters on a selective basis. Those with at least a degree in any discipline and five to ten years of experience in any court and others after passing the examination for becoming eligible to practice may be considered on par with other ‘verified’ advocates. There is nothing shocking or illogical in adopting such a viable course because going by the maxim: practice makes a man perfect, those with considerable experience can equal their ‘verified’ colleagues.

In fact, when in our country under the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 as also its 1942 version ‘any person of above 18 years of age’ can be chosen as an arbitrator by a party to the dispute and the Award given in an arbitration proceeding cannot be challenged even in the Supreme Court albeit barring certain fragrant violations in passing such an Award, then what prevents us to extend this provisions to all other litigations? Further, under Section 302 of the CrPC the Magistrate has powers to permit ‘ any person’ to conduct a criminal proceedings on behalf of an accused.

The origin of advocacy dates back to ancient Rome and Greece, when well established orators would perform as advocates or orators for specifically intended pleading someone else’s cause. Personalities such as Cicero and Caesar were among the greatest Roman lawyers. In modern history, the earliest advocacy groups originated in England during the mid-18th century when political issues connected to representation arose simultaneously with socio-economic changes such as market capitalisation and proletarianisation . At that time, no educational qualifications were insisted upon the advocates.

A recent example of P Natrajan of Tamil Nadu should be enough to substantiate this point. This gentleman devoid of any law degree served the judiciary as a Judge for full 21 years then after retirement continued to practice in the High Court.

He served the judiciary to the entire satisfaction of superiors. In fact, in the past enrolment frauds were predominant in all the States. Advocates were enrolled overlooking mandatory requirements obviously for money consideration. If a thorough probe is ordered by the government, many heads would roll.

Even today, in countries like Sweden, there is no such thing as ‘lawyers’ monopoly’ for practising law. Anyone who feels apt to practice law may do so with or without a law degree, in court as well as outside. However, the accredited lawyers are known as ‘Advokats’ and have an edge over other lawyers.

Therefore, let’s endure what we cannot cure! Bai to honour eminent lawyers

The oldest federation of lawyers in the country, Bar Association of India has announced the celebration of the Lawyers Day on December 3. On this occasion eminent lawyers including B V Acharya, N K Anand, Murlidhar C Bhandare, Iqbal M Chagla, Nilay Ananda Dutta, Naranarayan Gooptu, R.N Jhunjhunwala, U R Lalit, Gopal Subramaniam and M S Usgaocar besides eminent law teacher Prof (Dr) Moolchand Sharma would be honoured. Former Chief Justice and former Chairman of the Law Commission of India Justice A P Shah will be the Chief Guest and Attorney General K Venugopal will be the guest of honour at the function to be held in New Delhi which will be presided over by Fali Nariman, the President Emeritus of BAI.

Dr H C Upadhyay