Conference/Seminars/LecturesLaw School News

On the auspicious day of 122nd birth anniversary of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Banaras Hindu University had conducted a guest lecture by Ishaan Dave, a barrister from London.  He is currently practicing in the field of Criminal Law in the UK and has been in this profession for 13 years.

Banaras Hindu University alumni base is very old and prominent and one such alumni, Anjani Kumar Singh, Advocate at Bombay High Court also enlightened us on the very same day.

There were two main issues discussed:

  1. Access to Practice in the UK
  2. Hierarchy of Courts in the UK

Access to Practice in the UK

Mr. Ishaan unleashed his knowledge regarding how an Indian can practice into the UK, what will be the challenges, what are the privileges, what are the ways in which one can fulfill his or her dream of working in foreign law firms.

He told us about the importance of having LLB degree as a first step. Also, he mentioned about GDPL Programs which one can do if he is interested in becoming a solicitor or barrister.

Hierarchy of Courts in the UK

 There are two courts basically; one is for civil cases and the other for criminal cases.

Criminal Cases

The lowest court in criminal case is the Magistrates’ Court which consists of three well meaning members of society and one legal advisor.

After Magistrates’ Court, comes Crown Court where serious offences undergo trial.

After Crown Court, come High Court then Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court.

Civil Cases

The similar hierarchy is followed in civil court as that of criminal courts except the lower court is called the County Court.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the judgment quashing Allahabad High Court’s  decision in the matter relating to Institutional Preference, the  Bench of Deepak Gupta and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. held that admissions to post-graduate courses in central universities cannot be regulated by the concerned States and that benefit to doctors serving in Provincial Medical Health Services (PMHS) for admissions to post-graduate courses should be allowed irrespective of their State of graduation.

The High Court had set aside the institutional preference at Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Banaras Hindu University (BHU) on its own cognizance without even including AMU, BHU as well as the selected candidates as parties to the case and had also held that Regulation 9(iv) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 does not give benefit to doctors who had completed their MBBS/BDS outside the State of UP.

The Court, relying on Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, upheld the 50% institutional preference in AMU and BHU. It further held that Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations does not create any divide or distinction between doctors, and extends to even those doctors who had served in remote areas under PMHS but did their graduation from an institution outside the state of Uttar Pradesh. The Court said that once the graduate doctors are selected and join the medical health service in the State of U.P., they form part of one service, i.e. PMHS and when these doctors are posted to remote or difficult areas they are posted as doctors of PMHS and not on the basis as to which State they have done their graduation from.

The court also allowed AMU, BHU and other Government run medical institutions in the state to fill up the vacant seats till 12.06.2017 disposing off all the civil appeals and interlocutory application(s) related to the State of UP in WP No. 76 of 2015. [Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 638, decided on 07-06-2017]