Supreme Court asks State Bar Councils to report compliance with rule which mandates Senior Advocates to provide internship to law students

The Supreme Court recently asked State Bar Councils to file status reports regarding compliance with the rule which mandate Bar Councils to prepare a list of Senior Advocates for every district who are willing to take law students for internships during vacation periods [Neeraj Salodkar vs Bar Council of India and ors]..A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta passed the order on January 16. "Let the State Bar Councils enter appearance and file respective status report(s) stating whether they have implemented and are in compliance with Rule 26 of Schedule III to the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. The said status report will be filed within six weeks from today," the Court directed..Rule 26 places an obligation on State Bar Councils to prepare a district-wise list of suggested Senior Advocates with at least 10 years’ experience who are willing to take law interns during court holidays.It states the following:"The State Bar Councils shall be required to prepare a list of suggested Senior Advocates District-wise with at least ten years experience who are willing to take under internship students during the vacation period. The Bar Council of India shall then publish the list of senior lawyers willing to guide students under internship in the web-site as well as make the list available with the Institutions.".The bench during the hearing added that it was on the Bar Council of India (BCI) to publish the lists of such senior counsel prepared by the State Bar Councils, for the benefit of law students..The order came on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by one Neeraj Salodkar.Notably, in June 2022, the Central Information Commission (CIC) had pulled up the BCI for not providing a proper reply to a right to information (RTI) application filed by him towards a list of senior advocates under the 2008 Rules. The BCI had asked him to move the respective State Bar councils, but the CIC had stated that it “takes grave exception to the irony in the fact that BCI is admittedly not implementing Rule 26 of Schedule III of Part IV of the Rules of Legal Education framed by it, thus rendering the provision inconsequential.” The BCI was directed to publish and periodically update such lists ont heir website forthwith.Upon non-compliance of the same, Salodkar had moved the top court.Counsel for the BCI had in March last year submitted that such a list was being readied..Central Information Commission directs BCI to publish on its website inspection reports of law colleges.Advocates Radhika Gautam and Anjul Dwivedi appeared for the Bar Council of India.Petitioner Neeraj Salodkar appeared in-person..[Read order]