The Supreme Court on Friday lamented that the younger generation of lawyers is increasingly not willing to go to trial courts to learn the craft of legal practice [Ajay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh]..Justice SVN Bhatti made the oral remark after the Court had to clarify to a lawyer that his client can approach it again for further relief on the next hearing date, after first approaching the competent authorities. "The whole trouble with this generation is that they don't want to go to the trial court to learn the practice," Justice Bhatti said.A Bench of Justice Bhatti and Justice Prasanna B Varale was hearing a plea for parole filed by a man serving a 10-year sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, whose appeal against conviction was pending before the Allahabad High Court..The petitioner's counsel submitted that the High Court had earlier denied the petitioner parole on the ground that a 45-day parole had already been granted in September 2024 for the surgery of his wife.However, he clarified that the surgery could not be performed during that period due to her low haemoglobin levels. The surgical procedure has now been rescheduled for June 16, he said. Despite this, when the petitioner approached the High Court again seeking parole, his request was dismissed, the top court was told. The petitioner's lawyer urged the Court to, therefore, grant parole. He added that after the petitioner's wife undergoes surgery, the couple's young children will require care during her recovery. .The Court eventually granted parole for a limited period.However, it also found that the proper procedure had not been followed. It said that the petitioner should have first approached the relevant administrative authority and that the counsel for the petitioner ought to have informed the State’s lawyer in advance.“The normal procedure is to first apply before the authorities, convince them of the pressing reason, and obtain parole,” the Court stated.Nonetheless, taking note of the documents on record, the Court allowed parole for a week, from June 15 to June 21, 2022..The petitioner's counsel, in turn, urged the Court to extend such relief for two weeks instead of only one week. Justice SVN Bhatti replied that it was only on the insistence of his colleague on the Bench that he had agreed to grant parole in the first place, implying that he would have otherwise dismissed the plea.The lawyer then asked the Court whether he could approach the authorities during the one-week parole period to seek an extension. The Bench clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to file an appropriate application before the concerned authorities, and if necessary, return to the Court thereafter when the matter is heard next."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," Justice SVN Bhatti said. .[Read Live Coverage]
