The Delhi High Court has revised its policy governing the issuance of entry passes and identity cards to law students interning with advocates, restricting courtroom entry passes to students in the final years of their respective law courses.

Under the revised policy, third-year students of the three-year LL.B. course and fourth- and fifth-year students of the five-year integrated LL.B. course will henceforth be eligible to obtain entry passes/ID cards for internships with advocates.

The decision has been communicated through a circular issued by the High Court pursuant to the directions of the Chief Justice.

“As directed by the Chief Justice, it is hereby circulated for the information of all concerned that, henceforth, the entry passes/ID cards for law students doing internships with advocates shall be issued by this court only to the following categories of law students: third-year students of the 3-year LL.B. course and fourth-year and fifth-year students of the 5-year integrated law course,” the circular stated.

Documents Required for Entry Pass

The revised procedure also prescribes the documents that interns must submit while applying for an entry pass or identity card.

Law students will be required to furnish a recommendation letter from the advocate with whom they are interning, along with the advocate's enrolment number and a photocopy of the advocate's Bar ID card.

The intern will also have to submit copies of their Aadhaar card and college identity card, besides two stamp-sized photographs.

The revised policy effectively excludes first- and second-year students of the three-year LL.B. programme and first-, second- and third-year students of the five-year integrated law course from obtaining such entry passes.

Delhi HC Issues Contempt Notice Over YouTube Videos Targeting Judge

In another development, the Delhi High Court has issued a show-cause notice to a social media user, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him over YouTube videos allegedly targeting a sitting judge.

The videos were stated to contain “prima facie contemptuous” material concerning the judge in connection with the collapse of a multi-storey building at Saidulajab in May.

The High Court has also declined to recall its earlier order dated June 8, under which directions had been issued for blocking the social media accounts of the concerned person.

The Court's action comes in the backdrop of allegations that the online videos made disparaging or contemptuous references to a sitting judicial officer while commenting on the building-collapse incident.

The notice requires the respondent to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for the alleged content.