Supreme Court Laments Young Lawyers Avoiding Trial Courts: A Case of Parole Appeal

On Friday, the Supreme Court made a strong remark about how today’s young lawyers are often avoiding trial courts, where essential legal skills are developed. This observation came during the hearing of a parole petition in the case Ajay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

⚖️ Justice Bhatti Speaks Out

While hearing the case, Justice SVN Bhatti made a comment that reflected concern about the current generation of lawyers.

“The whole trouble with this generation is that they don't want to go to the trial court to learn the practice.”

This was said after the Court had to explain to a young lawyer how his client could apply again for further relief after first going to the proper authority.

🧾 Background of the Case

A man serving a 10-year sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act had filed a plea for parole. His appeal against the conviction is still pending before the Allahabad High Court.

Earlier, the High Court had denied him parole, stating that he had already been granted a 45-day parole in September 2024 for his wife's surgery. However, that surgery could not take place due to her low haemoglobin levels. Now, the surgery is rescheduled for June 16.

The man approached the High Court again asking for parole, but it was denied. He then came to the Supreme Court seeking relief. His lawyer explained that, after surgery, the wife would need care, especially since they have small children at home.

🏛️ What the Supreme Court Decided

The bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice Prasanna B Varale eventually agreed to grant parole for one week, from June 15 to June 21, 2022. However, the Court pointed out that the proper procedure had not been followed.

“The normal procedure is to first apply before the authorities, convince them of the pressing reason, and obtain parole,” the Court reminded.

The petitioner's lawyer had also not informed the State's lawyer in advance, which is another step usually expected in such matters.

Even so, because the documents supported the claim, the Court allowed parole for a limited time.

🔄 Request for Extension and Court’s Guidance

The petitioner's lawyer then asked if the parole could be extended to two weeks. In response, Justice Bhatti said that he agreed to the one-week parole only because his fellow judge insisted — hinting he might have otherwise dismissed the request.

The lawyer then asked if he could apply to the authorities for an extension during the parole period. The Court agreed and clarified:

“You can submit an appropriate application before the authorities, and then approach this Court to dispose of the application.”

The matter has now been listed for further hearing after June 25, giving the petitioner time to request an extension through proper channels.

🧑‍⚖️ Final Thoughts:-

This case not only highlights the Court’s willingness to show compassion in urgent situations but also shows its concern about young lawyers skipping important foundational experiences in trial courts. As the legal profession continues to evolve, the message from the Supreme Court is clear — there’s no substitute for learning at the grassroots level.