The Delhi High Court has commended a young advocate for independently conducting arguments after being entrusted with the matter in the absence of his senior, observing that junior counsel must be adequately prepared to address the Court rather than merely seek adjournments or passovers.
A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Nivedita Anil Sharma made the observation while dismissing a challenge preferred by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) concerning the appointment of a driver under the Other Backward Classes–Non-Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) category.
The Bench particularly appreciated Advocate Ayush Gupta, who appeared for AIIMS and proceeded with the matter while Senior Advocate Anand Varma was engaged elsewhere.
The Court noted that Gupta was not merely present as a formal junior but was sufficiently acquainted with the pleadings, record and factual matrix to advance the case independently.
What further drew the Bench’s appreciation was the conduct of Varma when he joined the proceedings midway. Instead of taking over the matter, the senior counsel remained alongside his junior and intervened only when assistance was required.
The Court viewed this as an example of the professional relationship between senior and junior members of the Bar that ought to be encouraged.
The Bench observed that it frequently encounters situations where young advocates appearing in court on behalf of arguing counsel seek passovers or adjournments and indicate that they are either unfamiliar with the case or lack instructions to address the Court.
Against this backdrop, the Bench regarded the present matter as a welcome departure from that practice.
The Court stressed that junior counsel should be equipped to take responsibility for a matter when circumstances require, while senior counsel should facilitate rather than inhibit such opportunities.
The Bench accordingly placed on record its appreciation of both Gupta and Varma, observing that such instances inspire confidence in the future of the Bar.
The observations came in the course of the Court’s adjudication of AIIMS’ challenge to a CAT order concerning the candidature of Girdhari Lal Jakhar for the post of Driver Ordinary Grade.
Jakhar had secured the fifth position after obtaining 161 marks out of 200 in the written examination. His candidature, however, was rejected by AIIMS on the ground that the OBC-NCL certificate submitted by him had not been issued within the prescribed period of April 2020 to March 2021.
The High Court found that the certificate nevertheless demonstrated his OBC-NCL status for the relevant financial year. The Bench also took note of the fact that AIIMS itself had granted him additional time to furnish the requisite certificate.
The Court therefore declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision and directed AIIMS to process Jakhar’s candidature within eight weeks.
The matter thus resulted not only in a decision concerning recruitment eligibility but also in a broader observation on professional practice before constitutional courts.
By recording its appreciation for the junior counsel’s preparedness and the senior counsel’s willingness to allow him to conduct the proceedings, the Bench highlighted the importance of mentorship, professional trust and meaningful opportunities for young members of the Bar to develop courtroom competence.
The Court’s remarks underscore that effective advocacy is not merely a function of seniority. Familiarity with the record, preparedness on facts and law, and the ability to assist the Court when called upon are equally integral to the discharge of professional responsibility.
The post Delhi High Court applauds Junior counsel for arguing independently, says seniors must give juniors room to lead appeared first on India Legal.