Advocate, Barrister, Solicitors: Difference between them

Justice is an integral part of any Democracy. Such Justice been done in the Halls of Courts which are termed as temples of modern Democracy. To uphold justice, these modern temples rely on advocacy of a person who is well good at law of the land. As law is not an universal rule, it vary from place to place. Where one part of the state may rule an act wrong while other may uphold it right. Especially, when it comes to Federation of small States. Such difference is crystal clear. Example, United states of America, Republic of India were the each individual states may follow own law while federal law is applicable to whole of the state.

To uphold justice, a person who knows law must do advocacy. Such person is called in many different names depending of the place in which such person conduct his profession on law. While it is called as 'an Advocate' when it comes to South Asia, it is called as 'Attorney' when it is done in United State of America. But such wordly distinction is not able to demarcate clear difference between all those who practice law. All those who practice law is good to do advocacy in their respective country.

Lawyer:

It is a generic term used to denote whoever does legal service. To our interest, it would include wide range of person who work under the judiciary. All person who directly or indirectly help in upholding law of the land is a lawyer. To be simple, it would be difficult to draw a clear line. Yet an example might make it clear.

In United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Lawyer would include clerks, judges and any other people who work under judiciary department. The term is so generic that it includes anybody irrespective of type of work done.

Lawyer is any person who is under Legal Service.

Solicitors:

In South Asia, person who is qualified to be an advocate could take up matter before any court of law. But in United Kingdom, the advocate profession has two branches. 

#1. Solicitors
#2. Barristers

Solicitors and Barristers, both are qualified to practice law. But Barristers have additional qualifications which is stated at the later stage of this post. Solicitors is the entry level. Whoever obtains qualification to practice law can be a solicitors. Most part of the solicitors work is to advise clients and represent them in lower criminal and civil courts.

Dress Code of Solicitors is the traditional 'Robe'.

Barristers:

Here comes the interesting part, Barristers. So who are the Barristers? How are they different from the Solicitors? What make Barristers stand separated from Solicitors? The Answers to those questions are simple. Though the wording of these classification is complex, it is simple to understand.

Foregoing section would have made clear about the solicitors. Barristers are made of 'Legal Qualification + Additional Qualification'. These are the professionals who are qualified to appear before Court of Appeal, High Court and House of Lords. The Hold monopoly to appear on behalf of their clients before the above mentioned courts. Solicitors are disabled from doing so. 

To become a Barrister, one has to come across 3 stages.

#1. One must complete LL.B program or under-graduate in other subject followed by conversion course.

#2. Vocation stage: Bar Professional Training course (BPTC) must be done. It is of choice. Either one may pick 1 year full time course or 2 year part time course.

#3. Pupilage: Completing the above mentioned steps, one must undergo 1 year pupilage in barrister chamber or any organisation approved by Bar Standard Board as PTO (Pupilage Training Organisation)

Barrister dress code is a Robe and Horsehair Wig.

Relation between Solicitor and Barrister:

It may appear that solicitor and barristers are different path in legal profession. But to put it right, one who is solicitor could take up Barrister by fulfilling the requirements of Bar Standard Board to become a Barrister. Solicitors and Barristers are interlinked with each other. They are inseparable when it comes to solving clients problem. 

Barristers' clients are solicitors who handle case on behalf of the clients in the lower courts. In other words, solicitors take of client needs in lower criminal and civil courts. But when it comes to appeals, Solicitors, on behalf of their clients, instruct Barristers to move appeal on the verdict of lower courts. So solicitors act as link between their clients and Barristers. 

Solicitors need to possess client management skills. Most part of time is spent with clients. So Solicitors must be able to understand the client need and must be confidence about all the facts and circumstances of the case. So then the Solicitors could provide confident instructions to the barristers. This make the part of the solicitors important. Any misunderstanding or misinformation will prejudice the client. 

Attorney:

It is equivalent of the Advocate in South-Asia. Attorney is a legal practitioner but in United States of America (USA). An Attorney is disabled to represent behalf of his client when it comes to handling administrative matters. It was to preserve the informal nature of such proceedings. You could see 'paralegal' in USA. 

1. 'A Paralegal is a person qualified through education and training to perform substantive legal work that requires knowledge of the law and procedures and who is not a qualified solicitor or barrister.' - Wikipedia.

Hope it would make clear about the distinction between Attorney and Paralegal. Paralegal is a person who act under an Attorney. Where Attorney is responsible for the acts of paralegal as they are deemed to be under the control of that Attorney or law firm.

Advocate:

Most popular term in South-Asia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh. Advocate is person who is entitled to represent his client before any court of law. There is no hard line which distinguish a senior advocate and an advocate. Any body could make presentation before the court of law.Yet, you will find some differences when it comes to Supreme Court or High Courts in each state. Still Advocate is a common term used to denote person who is qualified to practice law.

To the best of my knowledge, these are the visible differences between legal practitioners. Any views or further clarifications are welcomed.

Law Crumb: Call For Reader Suggestions

Law Crumb is happy to have you as reader. It is glad to mention, your support and encouragement has kept us running this Legal Aid blog. Its been months since this blog landed with first post. As a reader we welcome your suggestions and feedback. For us, your suggestions and feedback are valuable and we seriously consider such suggestions after a scrutiny. 

In the interest of our readers, we request everybody whoever visit this blog to provide feedback, if any, to enhance user experience.

Law Crumb is happy to have you as reader. If you find our information useful, you are at liberty to share them in social media. Any promotion made is laudable and make us get closer to needy people who could benefit either directly or indirectly. 

If any person who wish to get authorship or person who are interested in writing blog post could contact us! People who are interested could contact Law Crumb. After scrutiny, you can gain authorship in Law Crumb.

Once again Thanks for your support and encouragement which help us sustain our activity.

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court: Class 12 student to get 2 grace marks

The Madurai Bench of the madras High Court on Monday directed the director of government examination (DGE) to provide two marks to students who attempted questions 18 and 20 in the economics examination of Class 12 government higher secondary examination, held on March 27.

Tamil Nadu Post Graduate Teachers Association Madurai District President M. Chandran filed a petition stating allegations against the authority in setting the question paper. He said the two questions 18 and 20 for Tamil medium students, were unanswerable. When the case came up for hearing before the division bench of justice S.Manikumar and G.Chokalingam, the government side admitted the mistake and said it was ready to provide two marks to the concerned questions. It also produced a fax report from the education authority expressing consent.

Accepting it, the bench directed the director of government examination to provide two grace mark to the Tamil Medium Economics students



Source: Times of India

Tamil Nadu Play School Regulation

High Court Direction To Regulate Play Schools

While taking up a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Mr. K.Balasubramanian, a practicing advocate, sought direction to regulate unrecognized play schools operating in Tamil Nadu. The issue involves some 760 unrecognized play schools which are functioning without any sanction. The petitioner contended that these schools operate without any sanctions and admit hundreds of children and collect exorbitant fees from parents. The petitioner also highlighted the lack of infrastructure in unrecognized schools. Further, the petition brought to light the about complaints that are pending before education department officials unattended. 

The petitioner prayed for closure of all 760 unrecognized play schools running without any affiliation as prescribed by Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools Regulations 1973 and transfer those students from unrecognized play schools to recognized play schools.

Direction to Education Department

On August 14, 2014, when the petition came up before the Madras High Court, it was pleased to direct the Tamil Nadu Education Department to upload all details of the schools and related circulars in its website to avoid confusion. But Education Department failed to so. When the matter came up before the bench, State Government sought adjournments stating that norms under drafting and soon will be published.

When the issue came up April 6, 2015, another adjournment was sought be the Government, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T S Sivagnanam observed the State appears to be not serious in finalizing the norms despite repeated directions.

Further, the bench ordered the Home Secretary and School Education Department Secretary  should be personally present on June 16, if they fail to finalize the norms by the next date of hearing.

Lack of Infrastructure:

With present situation, any body who own or rent 650 sq. ft of floor space, could start such play schools. As play school academics are not serious, parents are not mindful to verify such play school recognition. A school must contain good infrastructure such as class rooms, play ground, first aid, drinking water,etc. But many play schools which are started with business motive charge exorbitant fee from parents but fail to provide good service in return. 

Most play schools operating would lack good play ground size. All children are made to occupy the small place which is used to run the play school. These play schools are popular in residential areas. The close proximity to house encourage parents to get admission to children.

With the growth of IT companies near cities, unrecognized play school numbers are up in the city sub-urban areas. As parents are working professionals, who do not find time to take of children during day time, find play schools which are in vicinity as a good place to leave behind their children. 

But when admitting a child, parents must take notice on the recognition that must be sought from the concerned State Government, infrastructure, safety and security of their children which is often neglected. The convenience outweigh the requirements. A compromise on these standards would be fatal. As a parent, it is wise to make sure about the play school before admitting the child.

The Direction of Madras High Court is step closer to regulate unrecognized play schools in the State of Tamil Nadu.

Aadhaar Card Compulsory?

The very question about this post is about "Aadhaar Card" issued by Government of India. The UIDAI came to light when Government mulled for reducing the burden of subsidy. The burden of subsidy was high on Government exchequer so it was piloted to reduce the beneficiaries who receive subsidy. The first target was to reduce the subsidy bill on the LPG customers. As almost all household have atleast one LPG connection, which increased the subsidy bill, it was made the primary target to reduce subsidy. The story started with UIDAI setup under the UPA government under the leadership of former Infosys gem Mr. Nandan Nilakeni.

LPG subsidy:

The burden of subsidy increased year by year as the LPG connection started penetrating every household in India. The subsidy was general without any discrimination between rich and poor. As it was thought that rich do not need a subsidy to subsist in India, the government made scheme to filter the poorer section of Indian population. The aim was to make reach the subsidy to the target poorer section and to reduce budget deficit which was increasing exponentially. Though it appears to be good project to reduce burden on government exchequer, Aadhaar card came with a tag that it is not mandatory. But one who wish to claim subsidy must have Aadhaar number linked to a Bank account.

Bank Accounts with Aadhaar numbers:

The Aadhaar project scheme was to deposit subsidy directly with beneficiaries bank account. So the Government mended Banks under RBI to facilitate opening of no-frill account linked with Aadhaar number of the customers. The reason cited was Financial inclusion in Economical development. With aid of Government, almost all household own at least one bank account now. The object of the Aadhaar induced bank account opening satisfied the government. Now, any person UIDAI number could list out bank account number held by that person.

Early problems of Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT):

The pilot project to deposit subsidy directly into beneficiaries account saw many pitfalls. The subsidy bill previously was claimed from the government by the huge corporations. Now, the end-user i.e, LPG consumer has to make claim to the government instead of oil corporations. The LPG consumers were made to run pillar to post to claim the subsidy amount due to them. Though, it saw many pitfalls, the pilot project was considered as success. The government started implementing the Aadhaar linked subsidy all over India.

Such announcement was made at the time when most LPG consumers did not have the Aadhaar card. Though government rushed up the issue of Unique number to all citizens, the delay in issuance of Unique ID left many consumers perplexed. To add fuel to the commotion, the form format were altered many times between the announcement and last date of rolling out the scheme.

Linking Aadhaar with Election Voter ID?

With so many problem attached with the well thought and planned LPG subsidy, now government has started collecting Aadhaar ID from each household in electrol constituency. The idea was to link Unique ID with voter ID. 

At first, the Aadhaar card was made not mandatory and it is optional. Thus, it was the choice of the citizen either to get Unique ID or not. But now, government move to link voter ID with Aadhaar card number hints that the future move would make it compulsory and must to have ID proof. 

The people who come to collect Unique ID from each household insist to get Aadhaar ID as soon as possible. Person who do not have an Aadhaar is looked up on like criminal by the officer who collect details at the instance of the government. The fact that we do not want Aadhaar is not pleasing those field officers.

Making Aadhaar Mandatory:

Various question would arise at this juncture:

1. Could Aadhaar card be made mandatory?

2. What is at stake if made mandatory?

3. How personal information of card holder be handled?

and many more endless queries comes out brain such as privacy rights, freedom of expresssion, etc.

If our memory could help us, the Aadhaar was stated as optional. It is deceiving that some thing which was made not mandatory at beginning was insisted upon the people of India.

Is the Aadhaar ID licence to benefits or act as tool to monitor each and every citizens of this Republic? Why do the government try to invade into personal details of its citizens? Time alone could answer those questions.

Fear of No Regulation of Internet

The Supreme Court of India has struck down the Section 66A of Information Technology act. Online activist who campaigned for removal of section 66A welcomed the move. Yet all laws don't exist without conflict of opinion. Few sections of people including activist, political parties, lawyers has question what would the result of the verdict.

Supreme Court scraps section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000:

Today, in a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court upheld the section 66A as unconstitutional as the word "grossly offensive", etc are vague. The verdict paved way for the protection of online citizens who express opinion through Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. The arrest of two college girls in Mumbai for posting comments against the manner of funeral provided for Shiva Sena Chief Bal Thackeray has created huge uproar against the atrocious section of the Act. While Supreme Court granted interim relief to get prior permission of Commissioner of Police or police officer at the rank of DCP to arrest person who post objectionable contents online by 2013.

Concerns following the Verdict:

Few people have raised concerns that scrapping of Section 66A would promote anti-social elements to propagate any ideology against anybody. Thus net neutrality would provide free for all situation. It might seen as a justifiable concern. When the world mulls for regulation of Internet through centralized body, such verdicts would puzzle people who advocate for Internet regulation. But such concerns are unnecessary. 

Section 66A is Not the Only Solution

A few months backs we would have heard that Department of Telecommunication (DOT) which ordered all Internet Service Providers (ISP) to block 34 websites. The reason cited was these websites were used to propagate terrorist activities in India. The whole scenario didn't warrant Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.

This would serve as a good example that Government of India could control Internet Content without the atrocious Section 66A. Moreover, the recent arrest of School boy for posting comments on Social Networking Site is a good example that it would do more harm than good. 

Without Section 66A Government is all capable of controlling the Internet content. Blocking of 34 websites is good precedent to explain how DOT could control offensive web contents. For people, who worry about scrapping of Section 66A, it will not do any harm to social peace and security.

Supreme Court: Sec 66A Stuck Down

Section 66 A of IT Act unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules

Section 66A: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc- any Person who sends, by means of a computer source or a communication device-

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill-will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to misled the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Police to arrest anybody who post objectionable contents online

The Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000, gives the police powers to arrest those who post objectionable content online and provides for a three-year jail term.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Section 66 A of the Information and Technology Act as unconstitutional.

The public’s right to know is directly affected by Section 66 A of the IT Act, the Court said.

It also termed the provision as vague and says “what may be offensive to a person, may not be offensive to others.”

The Section gives the police powers to arrest those who post objectionable content online and provides for a three-year jail term.

Freedom of Speech and Expression upheld

A bench of justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman had on 26 February reserved its judgement on one of the most controversial issues regarding the freedom of expression that the court has had to deal with in recent times. The verdict was reserved after the government concluded its arguments contending that section 66A of the Information Technology Act cannot be declared unconstitutional merely because of the possibility of its “abuse”.

The government said it did not want to curtail the freedom of speech and expression but contended that the cyber space could not be allowed to remain unregulated. During hearing however, the court had found several issues with the wording of the law. In particular, it said that terms like ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘of menacing character’, used to classify content as illegal, were vague expressions and these words were likely to be misunderstood and abused.

Interim Relief in 2013

The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by a law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls — Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan — were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death and the other ‘liked’ it. The apex court had on 16 May 2013, come out with an advisory that a person, accused of posting objectionable comments on social networking sites, cannot be arrested without police getting permission from senior officers like the IG or the DCP.