Law School Internships Do Not Qualify as Legal Practice Experience: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant judgment, clarifying that internships undertaken during law school cannot be counted as professional legal experience when determining eligibility for legal panel appointments.

Delhi HC Clarifies Internship vs. Legal Practice Experience

Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed a writ petition filed by Advocate Ujwal Ghai, who sought inclusion in the shortlist for the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee’s (DHCLSC) “Jail Visiting Panel,” despite not meeting the three-year experience requirement.

The court noted that the petitioner applied for empanelment following a notice issued by the DHCLSC on June 7, 2024, but was not shortlisted as he did not meet the minimum experience criteria as of the May 31, 2024, cut-off date.

Court Upholds Three-Year Experience Requirement for Panel Eligibility

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that his law school internships should count toward the experience requirement, the court held, “Legal practice is officially recognized as commencing only after formal enrolment as an Advocate with the relevant Bar Council. Internships undertaken as part of legal education, though valuable in providing practical exposure, do not satisfy the professional experience requirement for practicing law.”

The court clarified the distinction between internships and apprenticeships, stating, “The term ‘apprenticeship’ in the DHCLSC notice clearly refers to the period after formal enrolment, when an advocate might work under the guidance of a senior practitioner.”

Addressing the interpretation of Regulation 8(3) of the National Legal Services Authority Regulations, the court observed that while the regulation uses the term “ordinarily” regarding the three-year experience requirement, “this word must be given a meaningful interpretation. The regulation permits exceptions, allowing for the empanelment of legal practitioners with less than three years of experience, but this is intended to be an exercise of discretion rather than a mandatory rule.”

The court emphasized that the decision to relax experience requirements lies solely within the purview of the DHCLSC’s Monitoring Committee, and the Court cannot compel the exercise of this discretion in any particular manner.

Justice Narula concluded that since the petitioner did not meet the stipulated requirement of three years of practice as of the cut-off date, and the Committee had not exercised its discretion in his favor, there were no grounds for the Court to intervene in the DHCLSC’s decision-making process.
 [Read Judgment]