. Main differences between lawyers of lower Courts and Higher Courts - . With a notional exception that in both the places 75% of lawyers know only some statutory law and 25% know all relevant social, economic and political concepts behind an enactment who challenge vires of an Act with competence to extend elaborative arguments for hours and days together, 1. Lower Court advocates 1st draft the case, conduct trial, then search for favorouble case law where as Higher Courts advocates draft entire script in consonance with statutory and adjudicative law, 2. Lower Court advocates read only applicable sections of an Act whereas Higher Court advocates study from preamble to savings clause of an Enactment, 3. Lower Court advocates arrange facts of a case in a legal frame as per limited relevant laws whereas Higher Court advocates arrange all applicable laws to a given set of facts to study lower Courts Judgments, 4. Lower Court advocates plan the case when it in progress whereas Higher Court advocates plan even final arguments while drafting a case before filing, 5. Last but not least, lower Court advocates dont bother about mood of the bench in anxiety for their case whereas Higher Court advocates read the mind of the Court on that day and how it reflected on previous cases, . Similarly, there are several differences with regard to thrust, quality and characteristics between these two sets of lawyers with common elements of personal and professional honesty, commitment and sincerity that makes main difference in moulding a lawyer either in lower or Higher Court as superior to the rest, . For example, irrespective of seniority merely by age, who dont know background social, economic and past, current political history, cant effectively argue even for five minutes against Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 presently kept in cold storage of The Supreme Court Of India. Similarly against other arbitrary Enactments, too.
Posted on: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 06:56:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015