Ujjwal Ghai v. Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee

The case of Ujjwal Ghai v. Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (W.P.(C) 14016/2024 and CM APPL. 58688-58689/2024) was adjudicated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court before Justice Sanjeev Narula. The writ petition, represented by advocates Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr. Dhruv Chaudhry, Ms. Eshita Pallavi, and Mr. Adeeb Ahmad, challenged the interpretation of Regulation 8(3) of the National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010. The petitioner, Mr. Ujjwal Ghai, sought clarification on the term “ordinarily” within the regulation, which governs the empanelment of legal practitioners, and contested the rejection of his application for the Jail Visiting Panel due to insufficient legal practice experience.

Mr. Ujjwal Ghai, a practicing advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, applied for empanelment in the Jail Visiting Panel following a notice issued by the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee (DHCLSC) on June 7, 2024 (Notice No. 204/DHCLSC/2024/1441). The notice invited online applications for various panels, including Criminal Panel-I, Criminal Panel-II, Matrimonial Panel, Jail Visiting Panel, and Mediator Panel, for the term January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2027.

The petitioner submitted his application on August 13, 2024, and his documents were acknowledged by the DHCLSC. However, when the list of selected candidates was published on September 24, 2024, the petitioner’s name was absent. Upon inquiry, he was informed that his application was rejected for failing to meet the minimum requirement of three years of legal practice as of May 31, 2024, as stipulated under Regulation 8(3).

The petitioner raised the following key issues:

• Interpretation of “Ordinarily”: The petitioner argued that the term “ordinarily” in Regulation 8(3)—which states, “No legal practitioner having less than three years’ experience at the Bar shall ordinarily be empanelled”—implies flexibility, allowing exceptions to the three-year practice requirement.

• Inclusion of Internship as Apprenticeship: The petitioner contended that his mandatory internship during his final year of legal education should be considered equivalent to an apprenticeship, thereby fulfilling the three-year practice requirement.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, finding the petitioner’s arguments unconvincing. The court’s analysis focused on the following points:

The court clarified that the term “ordinarily” in Regulation 8(3) establishes a general rule requiring three years of legal practice for empanelment, with exceptions permitted only at the discretion of the DHCLSC. The petitioner’s reliance on Vibhas Kumar Jha v. Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee was deemed misplaced, as that case addressed a different context and did not support the petitioner’s argument for a blanket relaxation of the rule. The court emphasized that the regulation’s intent is to ensure that empaneled advocates possess sufficient professional experience, and discretionary exceptions are granted only in exceptional circumstances, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate.

The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that his internship should count as an apprenticeship. It held that legal practice commences only upon formal enrollment with the relevant Bar Council. Internships, while valuable for academic and practical exposure, do not constitute professional legal practice. The court further noted that equating internships with apprenticeships would undermine the DHCLSC’s requirement for substantial post-enrollment experience, particularly for sensitive roles like the Jail Visiting Panel, which demand a robust legal background.

The petitioner admitted that, excluding his internship, he did not meet the three-year practice requirement. The court observed that the DHCLSC’s monitoring committee retains discretion to make exceptions but found no basis to grant one in this case. Consequently, the petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was dismissed for lack of merit.

The case of Ujjwal Ghai v. Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee clarifies the interpretation of Regulation 8(3) of the National Legal Services Authority (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010. The Delhi High Court upheld the general requirement of three years of legal practice for empanelment, affirming that the term “ordinarily” allows limited discretion rather than a broad exemption. Additionally, the court distinguished internships from apprenticeships, emphasizing that only post-enrollment legal practice counts toward eligibility. The dismissal of the petition underscores the importance of adhering to regulatory intent and maintaining professional standards in legal empanelment processes.