Home > Recent Judgements > “Apprenticeship Not Equal To Practice”: Delhi High Court
Oct 28, 2024
BACKGROUND
In the case of Ujwal Ghai v. Delhi high court legal services committee, this concern relates to a lawyer (the Petitioner) who applied for a position to the Jail Visiting Panel and sought to be included in the shortlist for empanelment. As an Advocate enrolled on August 13, 2021, the petitioner was informed, however, that petitioner’s application had been disallowed as the petitioner did not possess the requisite minimum of three years of practice in the legal field by 31 May. Despite this, the Petitioner contended that his law school internships should be regarded as prior legal experience. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court held the position that such internships or studentship do not come within the definition of ‘active legal practice’ which is part of the qualification requirements since only practice after the enrolment as an Advocate must be reckoned. The Court turned down his plea observing that the practice of law must be computed in respect of the enrolment date as opposed to the date less his internship period.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether internships undertaken during legal education can be considered as active legal practice for the purposes of meeting eligibility criteria for empanelment?
- Whether the experience gained during internships should be counted towards the minimum experience requirement of three years for practicing law?
- Whether the petitioner’s internship experiences can be equated with an apprenticeship in the context of legal practice qualifications?
COMPLIANCE AND CONSEQUENCES
The following judgment concluded the dismissal of the petitioner’s grievance based on distinction in actual ‘practice of law’ post-graduation and the assumption of ‘learning law’ during internships.
The clear content of the eligibility criteria was thus to be calculated from the date of the petitioner’s professional practice rather than their previous plea of including undergraduate experience in the empanelment criteria.
JUDGEMENT
The judgment clearly imbibes the distinction between ‘academic pursuit’ and the ‘professional pursuit’ as Justice puts it; into the perspective of the nature of law being practiced. The clear demarcation insists the divulsion of both areas and initiates the surety of such limitations of practical implementation from the context of apprenticeship (via internships). It establishes a precedent for the contextual and real-world difference.
OBSERVATION
The above judgment concludes for the diversification of both the areas of the academic endeavor and professional workings. The keen observation of court and emulsification of such distinction showcases the dire recent replacement of common notions of being otherwise.
For more information or queries, please email us at
[email protected]
