Legal Education Demands Systematic Growth, Not Hurried Practicality

Addressing the intricacies of legal education and challenges within the legal profession, Durgesh Pandey, Additional District & Sessions Judge in Uttar Pradesh’s Ramabai Nagar, shares profound insights in a conversation with Education Post’s Prabhav Anand. Pandey, responsible for giving justice in many prominent cases, critiques the surge in law schools, emphasizing the necessity of a systematic educational approach. He suggests refining existing laws instead of introducing new ones to improve recent legal developments. As he succinctly puts it, ‘The challenge lies in addressing the outdated sections rather than introducing new legislation.’

Q. In what specific ways can legal education be improved to better prepare students for practical legal work by simulating or exposing them to the intricacies of courtroom dynamics?

Well, first of all, it’s a misconception that all knowledge can be gained in the courtroom. There are different stages – when we study in the classroom, we should focus on that. Just like planting a tree, we can’t expect immediate results. If a tree starts bearing fruit quickly, it might not give more fruits and may give them before time. So, to build a big tree, we need to invest time. Gandhiji said that students should focus solely on their studies, covering not only India but the world. Schools and colleges are not the field; fieldwork comes later. Just like in cricket, players do net practice before the actual match. Similarly, education should be step by step, from school to college, with good teachers and comprehensive study materials. It’s a misconception that all education should be practical from the beginning; vision develops gradually. We need to follow a step-by-step approach, guided by good teachers. Sending students for internships after just one-semester exam is not a game. It takes time, and after three to five years, students have enough time for development. In the beginning, vision doesn’t develop; a student studying law may not necessarily become a lawyer. It depends on their attitude and aptitude.

Q. There are numerous law schools in India. Every month or so, we come across news of a new law school being established in some part of the country. Considering the unequal quality of legal education across colleges in India, should students who do not get admission in good law colleges have the option to choose an apprenticeship model instead of going to a law school?

No, that’s not right. It doesn’t happen. A compounder never becomes a doctor. Yes, a compounder or a ward boy always works with a good surgeon. But if you tell him that he will become a good doctor or surgeon 20 or 30 years later, that will never happen. In our legal profession, every lawyer has a clerk, and during the British era and even in Indian courts, there is a system of registered clerks. They are registered, gradually learn, and during the British era, they were allowed to practice legal drafting. However, they don’t become actual lawyers. I mean, two different things. First, you have to study, then you have to learn, and then you become prepared. After studying for 5 or 3 years, the child doesn’t necessarily become fit for that field. After that period, they realize that the legal profession is not that easy. Just like not all MBBS graduates become good surgeons or physicians.

Law schools, anyone is opening them now. They open with four rooms, attach themselves to the Bar Council of India, get affiliated with some private colleges, and then there is a little focus. I’m not saying there is nothing in it, but there are so many colleges now. In the past, engineering colleges were opening everywhere. Today, there are many law colleges, particularly due to the CLAT exam; legal professions have become demanding because international law has come into play, and drafting in international relations and such have created a focus on this area. Opening new law colleges or national law colleges with different names, especially in the name of national law colleges, is a dangerous situation.

We need to ensure that our universities, whether state or old universities like Allahabad University, Banaras Hindu University, Delhi University, or law colleges like Patna Law College and Mumbai Law College, get good professors and lawyers. Students from these new law colleges are going to corporations; they complete 5 years and get a job with a legal firm, get a package of 10-15 lakhs, and go abroad. But we also need to see if we are getting good professors and lawyers from these new law colleges. As of now, it’s not seen. These new ones are more like MBAs. They are being promoted as law schools, but in reality, they are indirectly providing an MBA. They charge lakhs in fees. Since the country runs on common people, if the common man doesn’t change, if the common man doesn’t get education, there won’t be any improvement. So, changes are necessary in the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India; broad reforms are needed in this system.

Q. Could you provide insights into how recent legal developments in India, such as the introduction of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam are being incorporated into law school curricula nationwide? What are your perspectives on the potential impact of these legislative changes on the legal profession in India?

The recent legal developments in India, such as the introduction of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, have sparked debates on their implementation. Before applying these laws, there should have been a more extensive discussion. Personally, I believe there was no need for these changes. Comparing it to a medical scenario, if someone has a fracture in their hand, we treat the hand, not the leg. Similarly, our legal system should focus on fixing specific issues rather than introducing new laws.

The existing Indian Penal Code (IPC), Evidence Act, and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were well-crafted, and the amendments seem unnecessary. The challenge lies in addressing the outdated sections rather than introducing new legislation. The 1860 IPC, 1872 Evidence Act, and the 1973 CrPC have served well, and there is no need for radical changes. The problem is not with the laws but with their enforcement.

Changing the names of acts from English to Hindi does not alter their essence. The real issue lies in improving the training of legal professionals, similar to changing a driver if a vehicle is not functioning well. Mere cosmetic changes like renaming sections or dividing them into A, B, C, or D will not bring about meaningful transformation. The core principles of law remain unchanged, much like the unalterable aspects of a shirt. While minor adjustments can be made, the fundamental structure of the legal system should remain intact.

The curriculum in law schools may need adjustment, but the basics of legal principles cannot be altered. The focus should be on training and updating legal practitioners rather than introducing superficial changes. The challenge persists, and the real problem lies elsewhere, not in the fundamental principles of law.

Q. As a judge, while making a judgment for a prominent case, what kind of external pressure or threats do you face while making this judgment? Could you please share any situation you faced at the time?

In the realm of handling significant cases, every judge faces various challenges, not just in terms of external pressure but also interference from different quarters. The judiciary, however, has the advantage of being relatively insulated from interference by the general public. External pressures, such as interference from the police, bureaucracy, or politics, are kept at bay within the judiciary. It means that interference doesn’t extend to the level of impacting the decisionmaking process.

While serving as a senior judge, the dynamics are different from those of a junior judge. In any hierarchical system, there is a chain of command, and everyone has a superior. External pressure may not be directly applied to a senior judge, but for a junior judge, the scenario might be different. The commanding positions in the hierarchy can potentially exert pressure by directing or suggesting a particular approach to a case.

The pressures faced by judges can manifest in various ways. A senior judge may guide a junior judge on how to handle a case, implying that failure to do so may have consequences. The pressures are nuanced and can be internal as well, where judges themselves may think about the potential benefits or drawbacks of ruling against a prominent individual. The judicial system, while independent, isn’t immune to the interpersonal dynamics and relationships within society.

In essence, the judiciary remains independent, but individual judges may grapple with internal conflicts and considerations based on societal relations. The pressures are not always blatant but may come in the form of subtle influences, especially when dealing with high-profile cases involving influential individuals.

Q. Courts often get drawn into subjects or issues over which judges do not have enough authority or command over. For instance, religious practices or science related subjects. Should courts avoid it, or can they meaningfully resolve these issues even if they do not have technical expertise?

This is a misconception. The role of a judge is to make the best choices based on evidence and wisdom. The fundamental principle guiding the law is akin to the values we are taught – speaking the truth, working honestly, and choosing the best course of action according to wisdom. This principle remains constant, whether the subject at hand is related to science, IT, finance, or any other field.

The judge’s quality and the lawyer’s quality are distinctly different. While both may have similar academic qualifications, the judge requires a different set of qualities. A judge needs to be fearless, unbiased, and capable of extracting logical reasoning from arguments. The judge’s primary duty is to uphold the principles of justice and make decisions based on legal knowledge, not influenced by external factors.

The judiciary ensures that the basic principles of law remain unchanged, regardless of the field under consideration. The judge’s expertise lies in interpreting and applying the law, and their role is not affected by changes in subject matter. For instance, even if the case involves complex scientific or technical aspects, the judge’s duty is to apply legal principles to the best of their ability.

In contrast, a lawyer’s role is different. They need to be sharp, possess a quick logical mind, and bring forth the facts and arguments relevant to the case. While a judge may not need extensive knowledge in every subject, a lawyer must be well-versed in the intricacies of the case at hand. The legal system values the input of both judges and lawyers, each contributing their unique expertise to the pursuit of justice.

Q. What qualities should students or aspirants who want to opt to become judges possess?

Qualities are not something that someone can exactly pinpoint when it comes to wanting to become a judge. See, for those who aspire to become a judge in our system, it usually starts with being a good student. You know, after graduation in law, there’s this whole journey of preparing for exams like the Judicial Services and then aiming to become a judge. That’s the priority.

Now, for those who couldn’t qualify for these exams or those who have a liking for the legal profession, they often end up in the legal field. I mean, people from regular families, you know, where maybe five years ago or earlier, there was a craze for IAS.

So, it’s not like someone thinks from the beginning that they are capable of becoming a judge. It’s more like, “Okay, let’s try preparing for these competitive exams.” And if they qualify, great! If not, they might end up in the legal profession. But, you see, this decision often comes too late. The system has this major flaw that until you get inside, you won’t know whether you are cut out for it or not. And someone might think, “Man, I didn’t intend to be part of this system, but now that I’m in, it’s too late.”

It’s not something anyone can predict. And even if someone claims they can, they are probably wrong. You realize your inclination only after entering the system. Some end up writing poetry, become authors, and start painting – there are different paths. We have seen many, around 40-50%, who are not enjoying the service they are in. They might end up as teachers, pursue academics, or join judicial academies to become judges.

But this decision-making process is not easy. Some might go into IPS, and find that it’s not for them, and then try something else. The inclination is not predetermined. And if someone says, “I had the capability from the start to become a judge,” they are probably not being completely honest. It’s only after you get inside that you realize whether you are suited for this system or not. It’s like getting into a train compartment – you might end up in the general compartment or the sleeper class. Sometimes, it’s the wrong compartment. But, well, you can’t say everyone is in the right compartment; there are many in the wrong one. This is how the system works. It’s a bit flawed, and changes might not happen until there’s a significant overhaul in the basic education system.