“Legal Practice Is '5 Star Social Work'”: Justice Abhay Oka Urges Young Lawyers To Take Up Pro Bono Cases

Justice Abhay Oka of the Supreme Court on Wednesday emphasized the importance of pro bono work and legal aid, urging young members of the bar to take up such cases, Justice Oka describing legal practice as “5 Star social work”.

“And lastly my appeal to all young members of the bar is to work pro bono in legal aid cases. It is very important that all of you take up the legal cases. I always believe that legal practice is a 5 Star social work in the sense that if you are successful, you can earn a lot and at the same time you can do a lot of pro bono work and help people to agitate their grievances before the court.”

He suggested that it should be made compulsory for every designated senior advocate practicing in High Courts to appear in at least five criminal appeals per year for accused individuals unable to afford legal representation.

He proposed a similar rule for senior lawyers in trial courts, highlighting that in many serious criminal cases, inexperienced lawyers handle the defence, affecting the accused's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Also Read - Young Advocates Must Volunteer To Assist Poor Litigants; Must Break Misconception That Supreme Court Is Accessible Only To Wealthy : SC

The judge delivered a lecture on “Art of Advocacy and Duties of Advocates under the Constitution” organised by the Indian Law Institute - Assam State Unit.

Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court Judge; Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court; and Justice Soumitra Saikia, Gauhati High Court Judge and Executive Chairman of ILI Assam, also attended the lecture.

Justice Oka began his lecture by addressing constitutional duties of advocates. He summarized these duties as adherence to professional ethics and taking a stand within the framework of law to uphold the Constitution. He referred to Article 51A, emphasizing the role of lawyers in protecting constitutional ideals.

Justice Oka recalled the reaction of the Bombay Bar Association following the supersession of three senior judges after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. The association, led by former Chief Justice MC Chagla, protested without a formal meeting. “Independence of the judiciary cannot survive without the active role of the members of the bar”, he said.

Acknowledging that judges are not infallible, he pointed to the evolution of judicial interpretations from A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. He cited the historical instance of Chief Justice M.C. Chagla publicly apologizing in 1956 for the conviction of Bal Gangadhar Tilak in a sedition case by Justice Davar in colonial India. He also noted that while Justice Chagla's apology was criticized by an independent journalist arguing that Justice Davar's decision was correct as per the prevailing law, it reflected the strength of free speech and constructive criticism.

He recounted an incident where an editor of the Marathi version of Times of India faced a contempt notice after criticising a judge's lecture. He highlighted that the Bombay Bar Association and the Advocates Association of Western India took a stand and Senior advocates argued against the contempt charges. Despite initial resistance from the bench, the fearless advocacy of Advocate General Bhau Saheb Bobade led to the contempt notice being dropped, Justice Oka pointed out.

Justice Oka highlighted the evolution of media coverage in legal affairs. Recalling a time when court judgments were analysed for 2-3 days by law reporters before publication, he contrasted it with modern-day instant commentary, where judgments pronounced in the morning are discussed by “so-called experts” on television by evening.

Justice Oka also addressed problematic practices such as court boycotts by bar associations, noting that despite a Supreme Court judgment declaring court boycotts as criminal contempt, the practice persists. Such actions delay justice and contravene the Constitution's ideals, he said. He shared instances from his tenure, including issuing contempt notices to associations in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and even the Supreme Court. “Let's say in a district court there are 10 courts, at least 50 cases each court in a day. Boycott for a day there are 500 cases which get delayed”, he highlighted.

“There cannot be social and economic justice unless there is we are able to render quality justice to common man of India. So all those who are part of the legal system are duty bound to render justice to the common man of India. So skipping the court in protest does not find place in the Constitution”, he emphasised.

He further condemned instances where lawyers refused to represent certain clients, recalling an incident in Karnataka where a student was arrested for allegedly making anti-national remarks, and the local Bar Association decided that no lawyer would represent her. Justice Oka intervened suo motu, ensuring that the student received legal aid and issued contempt notices to the bar association members involved, emphasizing that such actions violate Article 21, which guarantees the right to legal representation.

Justice Oka also emphasised that fairness is the most integral part of professional ethics. He highlighted that fair lawyers receive better hearings in court. He explained that judges appreciate lawyers who are transparent and upfront about facts and legal precedents, even if they go against their clients' positions. He assured young advocates that fairness pays off in the long run, even if it might seem disadvantageous in individual cases. Judges, being human, are inclined to find ways to accommodate fair lawyers who present their cases with integrity, he shared.

Justice Abhay Oka expressed concern that both lawyers and judges are losing sight of the fundamental principle that the remedy is the hallmark of great advocacy. He emphasized the need for precision in pleadings, and highlighted that with the advent of technology, drafting has become a matter of copying and pasting, leading to unnecessarily verbose pleadings filled with excessive references to case law. He criticized the tendency of lawyers to overload courts with multiple judgments on the same issue, often just to impress clients.

He pointed out that this culture of verbosity is harming the judicial system, especially in arbitration, where lengthy pleadings, arguments, and judgments have become the norm. Judges, too, sometimes are compelled to write long judgments due to extensive arguments and numerous case citations, he said. He noted that laws such as the amendment to Order 18 CPC allowing affidavits in lieu of chief examination, have contributed to this problem.

“So the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief is turning out to be counterproductive. I am not finding fault with the law but I am finding fault with those who are implementing it. We judges should also be telling the lawyers that this is not done. These are the simple causes for prolonging the trials”, he stated.

This is also an issue in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, where complainants' affidavits often far exceed the length of the original complaint, he highlighted.

Justice Oka also criticized the practice of unnecessarily prolonged cross-examinations, recalling a case where a witness was questioned over 95 days, generating 55–60 pages of mostly irrelevant material. He lamented that the art of cross-examination has been forgotten, with lawyers mechanically stating, “I put it to you that this is false,” to everything a witness says rather than strategically highlighting contradictions and omissions. As a result, courts, including the Supreme Court, struggle to sift through massive cross-examination records to find relevant contradictions, he noted.

He stressed that ethics are not just about following Bar Council rules but about contributing effectively to the justice system. He cited landmark cases like Kesavananda Bharati, where lawyers played a crucial role in shaping jurisprudence, and the Habeas Corpus petitions filed during the Emergency, despite challenges. “They succeeded or they failed that is a different thing, but they showed the highest degree of professional ethics and took up the causes”, he said.

Justice Oka praised the Assam unit of the Indian Law Institute for its efficiency and encouraged it to introduce training programs for junior lawyers. He cited the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa's Continuous Legal Education Program as a model and suggested that retired judges and senior lawyers could teach young advocates essential skills.

“The chapter of Indian Law Institute can start conducting such courses for junior lawyers, for beginners, because they need legal education, and they need to be told the concepts of the art of advocacy. And we must train them on how to draft pleadings, how to conduct themselves in the court. We need to train them that when one lawyer is arguing he is not supposed to interrupt. They should show a lot of patience in the court”, he suggested, concluding his lecture.

The lecture can be watched here.