In All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Girdhari Lal Jakhar, the Delhi High Court commended a young advocate for being thoroughly prepared and arguing a case independently when his senior, representing the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in the matter, was unavailable.
A Division Bench of *Justices C Hari Shankar and Nivedita Anil Sharma* also appreciated the senior counsel for letting his junior argue even after he joined the proceedings.
_"Not only did Mr Ayush Gupta argue the matter as Mr Anand Varma was on his legs elsewhere; he argued commendably, and was thoroughly conversant with the file and the record. Equally commendably, we have to note, Mr Anand Varma, when he did reach midway during arguments, did not 'take over' the case, but sat beside Mr Gupta, merely helping at times when he faltered. This is what we expect of senior as well as junior counsel,"_ the Court observed.
The Court said that day in and day out it sees young counsel merey seeking passover or adjournments for the arguing counsel and confessing ignorance or lack of instruction to argue the case. The present case was a welcome difference, it added.
_"We see before us, day in and day out, with some dismay, young Counsel merely seeking passovers or adjournments on behalf of arguing Counsel, and confessing ignorance, or at times 'lack of instruction', if we call upon them to address arguments. This case presented a welcome difference,"_ it remarked, as reported by bar and bench.
The Court added that the junior counsel should be prepared and a senior must not discourage the junior from presenting the case in all matters.
_"We record our appreciation for Mr. Gupta as well as Mr. Varma. It gives us hope,"_ the Court further said.
