Report
A Survey of Advocates Practicing Before the High Courts
Report content
Background Historically, the legal profession in India has been paid little attention to in the public discourse on judicial reforms. Despite being one of the oldest professions in India, it also happens to be one of the most understudied, so much so that there is no authentic source to even verify the number of advocates in India. Ironically, one of the main sources of empirical studies on the Indian legal profession are the papers published by American scholars from the law and society movement, which studied the formal legal system created by the British. Much has changed since then, and there has been no systematic attempt at studying Indian lawyers, especially those practicing before various courts in the country. To plug this gap, JALDI (Justice, Access and Lowering Delays in India) project at Vidhi commissioned a survey of 2800 advocates practicing before eight High Courts in the country. The survey, the first of its kind in India, throws light on the practicing advocate’s perception about the institution of judiciary, their relationship with the Bar Councils, and informs us about their professional standing in terms of income levels and career prospects. Methodology For the survey, eight High Courts were chosen which account for approximately 57% of the total High Court judges in the country. These High Courts were chosen on the basis of the following considerations: 1. The High Courts at Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Allahabad are amongst the oldest and largest High Courts in the country whose traditions and practices date back to the 19th century; 2. The High Courts at Delhi, Gujarat, Patna and Kerala are located in the same geographical zones as the previous four. This ensures that the survey covered two High Courts in the north, south, east and west of the country making the survey as geographically representative as possible. Additionally, a pilot survey was carried out at the Delhi High Court to assess the feasibility of the questionnaire. After the pilot was conducted, a feedback session with the enumerators was organised and the questionnaire was revised to accommodate the suggestions. However, only four questions were revised for the final questionnaire. To indicate that the Delhi High Court was the site for the pilot survey, the results from Delhi are distinguished from the rest of the High Courts. High Court covered under the survey Number of advocates surveyed Delhi 356 Allahabad 351 Bombay 358 Calcutta 356 Gujarat 355 Kerala 350 Madras 400 Patna 354 Key findings 1. Perception of the Higher Judiciary: Advocates interact with judges on a daily basis – this allows them to observe the behaviour and diligence of judges. In this context, we included questions to measure the perceptions of advocates on different aspects of judicial functioning such as probity, competence, impartiality and independence from the government. Additionally, we also asked the advocates about their perception of the collegium system of judicial appointments. Corruption – The advocates were asked to score their perception of corruption in the higher judiciary between 1 -10, where a score of ten indicated that corruption is well entrenched in the higher judiciary.We found that 107 advocates who chose to answer the question from the Bombay High Court gave it a score of 10; on the other hand, in Gujarat High Court, 115 advocates who chose to answer the question gave it a score of 2-3. It is also pertinent to note that 266 and 254 advocates at the High Courts of Calcutta and Madras respectively chose to not answer the question at all. In stark contrast, 249 advocates from the Patna High Court had no hesitation in answering the question.(see page 13) Key for the graph: Fair hearing – On the issue of getting a fair hearing before judges, we found that 97.19%, 82.87% and 93.22 % of the surveyed advocates at the High Courts of Calcutta, Delhi and Patna respectively felt that their chance of getting a fair hearing depends on the bench. (see Page 15) Collegium system – When asked whether the collegium system of appointments should be continued with or replaced with some other mechanism such as the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), ● 53.63% of surveyed advocates from the Bombay High Court felt that the judiciary should continue with the collegium system in its current form; ● 90.4%,80.34%, 62.82% and 37.04% of surveyed advocates at the High Courts of Patna, Calcutta, Gujarat and Allahabad respectively felt that the collegium system should continue but with greater transparency; ● Pertinently, 64%, 34.25% and 32.58% of the surveyed advocates at the High Courts of Kerala, Madras and Delhi felt that the collegium system should be replaced with NJAC. (see Page 19) 2. Perception of the Bar Council: Under this theme we explored the relationship between advocates and the Bar Council of India (BCI), which is the apex regulatory body of the legal profession. In addition to this, we looked at the effectiveness of the welfare fund, the perception of advocates on the restrictions imposed against advertising, the popularity of the prescribed dress code and the inclination to continue legal education amongst practicing advocates. With regard to the effectiveness of the Advocates Welfare Fund, 92.4%, 65.7% and 75.4% of the surveyed advocates at the High Courts of Delhi, Madras and Gujarat respectively were not aware of anyone having received financial assistance under the fund. (see page 23) Have you or any other lawyer whom you know, received assistance from the Advocates Welfare Fund that was established by a law in 2001 [The Advocates Welfare Fund, 2001]? [Y/N] Among other questions on this theme, advocates were asked for their views on the restrictions imposed by the Bar Council of India with regard to advertising their services to potential clients. At present, there is a general prohibition against solicitation of work by advocates with a minor relaxation to create websites that provide basic information including contact details, qualifications and area of practice. The responses reveal that 65.5%, 87.4%, 81.4%, 60.5%, 64.8%, 94.6% of the surveyed advocates at the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Calcutta, Gujarat, Kerala and Patna respectively, were in favour of amending the rules which imposed restrictions on advertising. (see page 24) 3. Perception about the earnings and the practice : The third theme explored perceptions of the earnings of advocates at different stages of their careers, the affordability of law reporters and online legal databases, the effect that caste/religion of the advocates has on their professional life and languages used by High Courts to conduct their proceedings. As many as 80% of the surveyed advocates from the Delhi High Court believed that lawyers in their first two years of practice earn between Rs. 5000 and Rs. 20000 per month. A lower scale of Rs 2000-Rs 5000 per month was included in the options given to respondents based on the feedback received from the enumerators who conducted the pilot survey at the Delhi High Court. Consequently, 40% of the surveyed advocates at the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Kerala, Madras and Patna were of the opinion that young lawyers earned between Rs. 2000 and Rs. 5000 per month, during their first two years of practice. (see Page 28) Majority of the advocates surveyed stated that they subscribed to print or online databases of law reports. More than 50% of the surveyed advocates across all High Courts found the subscription fees to these law reports to be affordable. Additionally, 47%, 67%, 66% and 72% of the surveyed advocates at the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Gujarat and Madras respectively were of the view that English should continue as the language in which the High Court conducts its proceedings. On the other hand, 78%, 54% and 81% of the surveyed advocates at the High Courts of Allahabad, Kerala and Patna respectively thought that they should have the liberty to argue either in English or in their local language. (See Page 34)
Report document
Authors
Prashant Reddy T.
Former Team Lead, JALDI
Prashant Reddy T. was a Senior Resident Fellow and former team lead of Judicial Reforms Initiative at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Chitrakshi Jain
Former Research Fellow
Chitrakshi Jain was a Research Fellow with the Judicial Reforms vertical. As a member of the vertical, she worked on issues such as judicial planning, transparency in the judiciary and the way the office of prosecution works in the criminal justice system in India. A 2014 graduate of NALSAR, Hyderabad she was working as a research associate for the Centre for Social Justice, Ahmedabad prior to joining Vidhi. Interested in pursuing research that lies at the intersection of law and social sciences, she completed her Masters in Politics from the University of Delhi.
Shreya Tripathy
Senior Resident Fellow
Since 2018, I have worked in JALDI on topics such as judicial diversity, infrastructure and efficient budgeting for the judiciary. I have also undertaken several data-driven projects intending to understand the systemic problems of the judiciary at all levels and provide targeted solutions. I have publications in the Economic and Political Weekly and other law & policy review journals. I have also published in the Outlook and platforms such as Hindustan Times and The Print. My areas of interest include Human Rights & Judicial Reforms. I graduated with B.B.A.LL.B. from National Law University, Odisha in 2018. Before joining Vidhi, I interned in organizations like Nyaaya, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre and Partners for Law in Development. My dream for the Indian judiciary is that it becomes more inclusive and accessible for all. The general narrative when it comes to accessibility and the judiciary tends to shift towards litigants who may be Persons with Disabilities. It is high time that the judiciary starts changing this narrative and starts considering accessibility for all and at all levels including judicial officers and staff. I am an enthusiastic collector of cookbooks and love trying out recipes from around the world.
Reshma Sekhar
Former Senior Resident Fellow
Reshma was a Senior Resident Fellow working in the area of Judicial Reforms. Her work focuses on systemic issues in the judiciary such as infrastructure, judicial selection (AIJS) and training, and tribunalisation. At JALDI, she was involved in interdisciplinary projects addressing the need for effective modern solutions to promote accessibility and agility of the judiciary, including the re-thinking of courtroom architecture and digitisation of the judicial process. She takes a keen interest in data design, enrichment and visualisation. Reshma graduated with a BA, LLB (Hons.) from the National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Cochin in 2015. Prior to joining Vidhi, she was an in-house counsel in the legal compliance function of a leading Indian technology company.
Institution
High Court
Tags
Judicial Data
Transparency
User-Centric
Related articles
Financial well-being of Advocates is not all black and white
This opinion was published in Bar & Bench on 23rd May 2020.
Survey of high court advocates exposes fault lines between bar, bench; greater transparency in judicial appointments need of the hour
The opinion was published in First Post on 19th May 2020.