The Supreme Court expressed concern over young lawyers neglecting trial courts for real courtroom experience. Justice SVN Bhatti remarked that this generation lacks willingness to learn legal practice from the grassroots.
New Delhi: Today, on June 13, the Supreme Court of India granted parole to a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, even as it expressed disappointment with the younger generation of lawyers for not learning legal practice at the trial court level.
The case was heard by a Bench comprising Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice Prasanna B Varale.
Also Read: CJI Chandrachud’s Unexpected Gesture | Sits on Stool to Assess Comfort for Young Lawyers in Court
During the hearing, Justice Bhatti made a strong observation about young legal practitioners, stating,
“The whole trouble with this generation is that they don’t want to go to the trial court to learn the practice.”
The parole plea was filed by a man serving a 10-year jail sentence under the POCSO Act. His appeal against the conviction is currently pending before the Allahabad High Court.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted before the Supreme Court that although the High Court had granted 45-day parole in September 2024 for the surgery of the petitioner’s wife, the surgery could not be performed at that time because of her low haemoglobin levels.
The counsel informed the Bench that the surgery had now been rescheduled for June 16, 2025.
However, when the petitioner again approached the High Court for parole considering the new surgery date, the request was rejected.
The lawyer told the Supreme Court that after the surgery, the couple’s young children would require care while the wife recovered. Hence, he requested the apex court to grant a fresh period of parole.
The Court accepted the urgency of the situation and allowed the parole, but also highlighted that proper legal procedure was not followed.
It observed that the petitioner should have first approached the concerned administrative authorities for parole before moving the court.
The Bench also pointed out that the counsel should have notified the State government counsel in advance about the urgent hearing.
The Court stated,
“The normal procedure is to first apply before the authorities, convince them of the pressing reason, and obtain parole.”
Despite these procedural lapses, the Court granted parole for a limited period of one week, from June 15 to June 21, 2025.
However, the petitioner’s lawyer requested the Court to extend the parole period to two weeks instead of one.
To this, Justice Bhatti remarked,
“It was only on the insistence of my brother (Justice Varale) that I agreed to grant parole.”
This implied that Justice Bhatti was not initially in favour of granting the parole.
The lawyer further asked whether his client could approach the authorities during the one-week parole to seek an extension. In response, the Bench clarified that the petitioner had the liberty to do so.
Also Read: Civil Judge Exam | SC Permits Delhi-Based Lawyer to Apply for Exam in Telangana
Justice SVN Bhatti explained,
“That is why the case is listed after the 25th. You can submit an appropriate application before the authorities, and then approach this Court to dispose of the application. We should have told you that as well,”
Case Title:
Ajay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Murder
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
