Supreme Court Directs State Bar Councils To Report Implementation Of Rule To Publish List Of Senior Lawyers Willing To Mentor Law Students
In a significant development, the Supreme Court this week issued directives to state bar councils, compelling them to submit status reports regarding compliance with Rule 26 of Schedule III to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The order stems from a public interest litigation (PIL) urging the publication of a list of seasoned lawyers willing to mentor law students during college...
In a significant development, the Supreme Court this week issued directives to state bar councils, compelling them to submit status reports regarding compliance with Rule 26 of Schedule III to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
The order stems from a public interest litigation (PIL) urging the publication of a list of seasoned lawyers willing to mentor law students during college vacations. These senior lawyers must have a minimum of 10 years of experience at the Bar and must be amenable to guiding interns. Rule 26 mandates state bar councils to prepare a district-wise roster of such senior counsel and obligates the Bar Council of India to publish and circulate this list for the benefit of law students seeking internships.
The writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution is currently being heard by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta.
In October 2022, the apex court issued notice and sought responses from the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the state bar councils, in response to this PIL expressing concern over the absence of a compiled list of senior advocates. In an attempt to foster a more inclusive and egalitarian environment for legal education and internships, the petitioner flagged concerns regarding the challenges faced by law students, particularly those lacking influential contacts, in securing meaningful internships. The non-publication of the list of mentors, the petitioner has argued, has "caused immense loss to the legal fraternity, especially the law students, who have to beg before lawyers to give them work so that they can learn". The plea also specifically points out that those students who do not have any such 'contacts' are often "left to fend for themselves".
Last year, in March, the Supreme Court received assurances from the BCI that the preparation of the said list was underway and would soon be made public. It was also informed that the Bar Council of India had submitted a letter, instructing state bar councils' secretaries to compile their respective lists within 15 days. The court, taking this information into account, recorded the undertaking. The BCI is represented by Advocate-on-Record Radhika Gautam assisted by Advocate Anjul Dwivedi.
In its latest order, the Supreme Court has now instructed state bar councils to file status reports affirming their adherence to Rule 26, setting a deadline of six weeks for the submission of these reports. The order reads:
"Let the state bar councils enter appearance and file respective status report(s) stating whether they have implemented and are in compliance with Rule 26 of Schedule III to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The said status report will be filed within six weeks from today."
This matter has been posted for further hearing in May this year.
Case Details
Neeraj Salodkar v. Bar Council of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 698 of 2022