ADVOCATES LICENCE OF PRACTICE RIGHT OF PRE-AUDIENCE

ADVOCATES LICENCE OF PRACTICE RIGHT OF PRE-AUDIENCE <!--[if gte mso 10]> ADVOCATES LICENCE OF PRACTICE RIGHT OF PRE-AUDIENCE By Mr. Qamar-ul-Islam, Advocate, Karachi Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and Rules, 1976, like other statutes of the country give a colonial look, lacks with concept that Advocate once enrolled as an advocate be entitled to appear and right of pre-audience at any level of Courts, as against conditions of 2 years of practice at lower Courts for enrolment at High Courts and then 10 years of standings at High Courts to entitle him to apply for enrolment to practice at Supreme Court exists. Common complaints of Advocates having applied for enrolment as Supreme Court Advocate are that even if they fulfil the requirements as laid down therein their enrolment is deferred, for no reasons explained. No good service is done through this practice except to create an affluent class, justice seeking exercise has become expensive giving a slogan to society that justice is right of rich and influencials. Young lawyers, prepare cases with more care, dedications, with untiring efforts and appear more prepared, avoiding misstatements, not able to afford rather afraid of consequences, lacking face value, which they may or may not achieve even on their last legs of life. Most of such Advocates are employed by those Advocates, even violating Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1973 and it's Rules, who only appear at High Courts and Supreme Courts, for preparing their cases, taking dates and other miscellaneous works. This very system is also responsible for pendency of the cases for non-availability of even such Advocates at superior Courts who have reserved themselves exclusively for superior Courts, their huge team of employees Advocates is seen rushing from Courts to Courts, holding brief, seeking adjournments etc. which is not available to young lawyers. Through this system practice of selected cases, corporate practice retainerships, Banks, Insurance etc. have concentrated in few hands, so same faces have become common before Judges. Quality of work has downed tremendously and impaired. Juniors are told that Advocates legs shiver before the Judges and even they cannot be on their feet, which disliked disclosure frighteneds listners, who believe and are told that Judges are only good listeners, with pleasant smiles and encouraging faces in an effort to understand case in every hope that they may be able to help in any way to the person before youngsters are justified in believing that so called elders have not been able to deliver any good service to fraternity, system, solutions of problems, improvement in laws, impart of impartial justice, architecting the cases on legal and technical points, without favour and without recording untrue, mis statements and lie in their pleadings, and pleadings also, able to delete and eliminate false allegations, indecent words and remarks. Most of them through these means raising their status to be so called eminent, jurists, philosophers, etc. without disclosing who made all that to them and through what means and what considerations, to mint money at the cost of juniors, judicial systems, there are no writings, except copying of repeated, reported judgments and statutes, on improvement of laws, misconducts, check and balance against juniors and particular and against lawers in general. The whole system concentrates in few hands, election contesting groups, which now contested by spending millions, even in wake of democracy, human rights, status quo is maintained and advices to juniors are to follow the same course of practice, as the predecessors did so even if it was corrupt. Even British who left these colonies refuse to be slaves of their own words. On the behest of some at Karachi, F.R.As. suits etc. up to Rs.30 lacs only have been transferred to lower Courts, whereas else in country, even lower Courts Judges of interior Sindh enjoy unlimited pecuniary jurisdictions. This discrimination at Karachi makes the litigation expensive on one hand and also takes away one right of appeal. It is also not appreciated that Appeal before High Court against High Court (H.C.A.) is an exception to jurisdiction. To listen a case in appeal, as it's sounds as well a higher forum is required passing original. It is, therefore, suggested that Legal Practitioners Act and Rules, be suitably amended to the aspirations, of Advocates, litigants, on democratic and accountable lines, in order to meet the purposes meant for.