n a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has clarified that internships completed by law students do not qualify as “active legal practice” for the purposes of meeting the professional experience requirements after being enrolled as advocates. This ruling was articulated by Justice Sanjeev Narula while dismissing the petition of Ujwal Ghai, who sought inclusion in the shortlist for the “Jail Visiting Panel” empanelment process.
Background of the Case
Ujwal Ghai enrolled as an advocate on August 13, 2021. In June 2024, the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) announced a call for applications for empanelment of advocates and mediators. Ghai applied for the “Jail Visiting Panel,” but his name was omitted from the shortlist published on September 24 due to his failure to meet the minimum requirement of three years of active legal practice as of the cut-off date, May 31.
Upon investigation, Ghai learned that his application had likely been rejected because the committee did not recognize his extensive internship experience during law school as applicable towards this requirement. He argued that these internships should count similarly to an apprenticeship, which would render him eligible for the interview.
Court’s Observations
Justice Narula rejected Ghai’s claims, emphasizing the critical distinction between internships and active legal practice. He asserted that the period of internship, while beneficial for educational development, does not satisfy the eligibility criteria for professional practice as outlined by legal standards.
The court observed, “The period of ‘internship’ as a student does not amount to the active legal practice contemplated under the eligibility criteria, and as such, cannot be counted towards the three-year experience required for empanelment.” This ruling underscores the importance of formal enrollment with the Bar Council as the starting point for professional legal experience.
Implications of the Ruling
The judgment reinforces the notion that practical training gained during law school is not equivalent to post-enrollment legal practice. This distinction is pivotal for aspiring advocates, as it delineates the clear path from academic training to professional legal responsibilities.
The court noted that certain governmental bodies may offer apprenticeships to law graduates, but these opportunities are separate from the legal internships undertaken during education. To equate the two would compromise the integrity of the eligibility criteria and blur the lines between academic training and actual legal practice.
Conclusion
The ruling serves as a reminder to law students and new advocates that while internships are invaluable for gaining experience, they do not substitute for the necessary practical experience required for legal practice. The court has clarified that any practice should be measured from the date of enrollment with the Bar Council, ensuring that the professional standards are upheld.
Title: UJWAL GHAI v. DELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE (DHCLSC)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1118.
This decision highlights the need for law students to seek opportunities post-enrollment to gain the necessary experience to fulfill the requirements for active legal practice.
Legal and Policy Opportunities:
Functional Lead – Legal Compliance at Trident Group
Location: Budhni, Madhya Pradesh
Lead legal compliance in a top textile and paper company.
Legal News Reporter at Law Chakra
Location: Remote
Freshers welcome, report on breaking legal news and events.
Legal Position at Biocon Biologics
Location: Bengaluru
Handle high-level legal operations in a cutting-edge biosimilars company.
Inter Legal at Legal Lifelines
Location: Remote
Work in legal consulting and document preparation in a flexible remote environment.
Corporate Legal by Tata Communications
Location: Mumbai
Focus on intellectual property, trademarks, and media law at Tata Communications.
Discover more from Lawfer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.