It merits no reiteration that when one of the most eminent and senior lawyer of the Supreme Court who has a most distinguished track record and who is also a former Attorney General of India – Mukul Rohatgi says something on any point pertaining to lawyers, courts and judges then our law makers as also the judiciary must take a very serious note of it! It cannot be just glossed over. He speaks always most practically, pragmatically and pertinently as also powerfully which just cannot be ignored as he always talks sense and owes full responsibility for whatever he says on any given topic of law.
While speaking with journalists, Mukul Rohatgi minced just no words to point out that there should be regulations to restrict the number of cases a senior advocate should argue in a day so that other lawyers may also get a piece of the pie. We all had seen earlier how Mukul Rohatgi during a recent hearing in the Supreme Court had strongly said that he would be the first one to support a rule that a senior advocate should be allowed to appear only in a limited number of cases on a daily basis. Absolutely right! This will certainly go a long way in ensuring that younger talent gets enough opportunity to showcase and exhibit their knowledge of law in different ways in different cases!
While candidly speaking straight from his mind, the learned former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi waxed eloquent to rightly hold that, “I would very much support such a rule so that other lawyers may also get some more work. But the rule must be universally and uniformly applied to everyone. There are many clients who would want me to argue their cases and I will have to turn them away. But if this is applied across the board, there will be a lot of work for other people rather than this concentration that you have in the Supreme Court and in the high court where only a few lawyers get most of the work. This inequality and concentration of work will continue until there is freedom to make choice. But you can still have reasonable restrictions in the form of restricting the number of cases.”
On the query of should senior lawyers also impose some kind of a self regulation in this regard, Mukul Rohatgi made it absolutely clear that, “Unless there is a regulation, it becomes very difficult to bring a change. Even if I am supposed to do 10 cases in a day, I will have to return more than 10 cases. Self-regulation cannot serve the purpose since you will always have clients and their lawyers asking you to take their cases… They will ask how does it matter
if you do 12 cases instead of 10 when you are in the court and can manage them.”‘ So there can be no disputing the irrefutable
On a serious note, Mukul Rohatgi had before the Supreme Court called it “an unfortunate aspect of the profession” that only a few lawyers are engaged in most of the cases involving high stakes and high monetary values. Rohatgi in his personal opinion while again underscoring the need to have regulations to redress this disparity stated succinctly in simple, suave and straight language that, “This is a fact of life. This is not only in the legal profession but in most of the professions. Some doctors are hugely popular in the medical profession. Similarly, some lawyers are massively popular… Even in Bollywood, there is a group of film stars who are hugely popular… Reasons are many but these are facts of life. Situation is not ideal where everybody gets sufficient amount of work. This is something very difficult to get rid of as long as you have free world, free choice. This is why you need some regulation that have the binding effect.” Absolutely right! There can be just no denying it!
It would be imperative to also mention here that in the course of his address on 24 April, 2021 where Fali Sam Nariman who is world’s top jurist and was the Chief Guest for an event hosted by the Society of Indian Law Firms (SlLF) to commemorate 60 years since the passage of the Advocates Act and which was moderated by President of the SILF – Lalit Bhasin, Fali Nariman made it a point to mention most eloquently, explicitly and effective that the system introduced by the Advocates Act replaced a system that had evolved in the Bombay Bar of senior lawyers voluntarily sacrificing areas of their practice so that the younger members of the Bar could gain a foothold. But now this is not seen anywhere. It is beyond comprehension and most baffling as to why this most exemplary, worth emulating and also most laudable practice was not encouraged later everywhere? It should certainly have been replicated all across the country uniformly and most promptly but alas that was not to be!
While shedding even more light on this, Fali Sam Nariman then further went on to candidly concede that, “In the mid 1950s, the complaint of then younger members of the Bombay Bar, some of us, was that the older members were cornering almost all the work on the original side where we practice… Fortunately seeing that younger members of the Bar were disappointed, a couple of wise and far sighted older advocates persuaded all lawyers then in practice on the original side for 25 years or more to go on an imaginary ‘senior list’, voluntary by choice – which meant that those on the senior list undertook no longer to appear in chamber matters or motions on the original side of the high court nor in interlocutory applications in suits and petitions. And the advantage was that it gave us younger entrants in the Bar a chace to prove ourselves and believe me, this worked.”
Needless to say, this certainly compels us to wonder that, “When this can work in Bombay then why not all across the country?” Of course, for this to happen what was required was just firm commitment, firm resolve to promote younger members of the Bar and magnanimous approach as was remarkably and demonstrably shown by senior lawyers of Bombay! In other words, Nariman then waxed eloquent to explain that, “This meant that senior lawyers were parting with such areas of practice as an act of sacrifice and not for a badge of fame or distinction.,” This was truly commendable and should have continued till now. But alas! That was not to be as the high standards that were set by senior members of the Bombay Bar as pointed out by Fali Sam Nariman was not followed later on!
Quite lamentably, Fali Nariman then was at pains to point out that, “Unfortunately, the 61 Act has reversed this very healthy precedent.” We all must note here that Fali Nariman then while taking the right moral stand frankly opined that, “I believe the voluntary system adopted by the Bombay Bar was better than the prescription in the Act, because it ensures the equality of opportunity amongst those practicing the law with a distinct weightage in favour of the junior bar.” Nariman has a valid point!
To conclude, it goes without saying that it is the bounden duty of our law makers to incorporate the requisite changes as has been so very sagaciously laid bare by two top jurists – Mukul Rohatgi and Fali Sam Nariman in the most elegant, eloquent and effective language. This will definitely not just boost the morale of younger generation lawyers as mentioned above but also enable them in coming out of the shadows of the senior lawyers which is bound to have a significant impact on their standing in the Bar.
No doubt, what all has been suggested so commendably by Rohatgi and Nariman must be given effect to point by point immediately so that no one is treated unequally on any ground whatsoever! It is a no-brainer that this will certainly help in ensuring that our judicial system benefits immensely as a whole! Unquestionably, change is the law of progress and the time is quite ripe now to incorporate the changes which two top jurists have so commendably suggested! There can certainly be just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi