When Law leaves the Classroom
I first began writing this article almost a year back during my internship under Advocate Atul Raina at the District Court, Jammu. At the time, I would sit in courtrooms, observe proceedings, listen to arguments, and feel as though I was finally beginning to understand how the legal system truly functions.
In reality, however, I still understood only the “the academic understanding” of law.
Recently, after personally experiencing the pressure of being entangled in a false criminal case, many things that once seemed purely theoretical suddenly became deeply real. This article is no longer written from a purely academic perspective. It emerges from observation, personal experience, courtroom exposure, confusion, pressure, and the difficult lessons that reality sometimes teaches.
As law students, we spend years studying constitutional principles, procedural safeguards, landmark judgments, and powerful statements such as:
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Inside classrooms, these words sound reassuring and idealistic. In reality, however, I witnessed people sitting outside courtrooms from morning until evening, only to hear that their matter had been adjourned once again.
For court staff and even advocates, this may appear routine. But for an ordinary person, another date often means missing work, arranging travel expenses again, answering anxious relatives, dealing with financial strain, and mentally reliving the same stress repeatedly.
Earlier, I believed that the greatest battle in a criminal case was proving innocence before the court.
Practically speaking, however, long before that battle even begins, a person often struggles with panic, social judgment, police pressure, repeated procedures, uncertainty, and emotional exhaustion.
That is something law books rarely prepare people for.
If this entire experience taught me one thing, it is this:
During legal pressure, emotions often make people speak impulsively. Practically, however, the safest approach is to remain calm, speak carefully, and ensure that your advocate is aware of every fact completely and truthfully.
Many people try to explain themselves emotionally during stressful situations, believing that honesty alone will immediately resolve everything. In reality, one extra sentence, one misunderstood statement, or even one omitted detail can later create unnecessary complications.
I came to realize that an advocate can protect a case effectively only when they are aware of the complete truth — not merely fragments of it.
There is a well-known observation by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.:
“The life of law has not been logic; it has been experience.”
Earlier, this felt like just another legal quotation. Today, it carries an entirely different meaning for me.
In law school, legal procedures appear systematic and balanced on paper. Practically, however, I learned how delays, technicalities, influence, and procedural pressure can profoundly alter the lived experience of a person involved in litigation.
One thing I personally observed was how even minor procedural issues can create immense pressure. At times, a matter does not move because of its actual merits at that stage, but due to missing documents, incomplete reports, procedural delays, technical objections, or repeated adjournments.
Another difficult reality I came to understand was how procedural delays on the police side can indirectly keep an accused person and their family under continuous pressure, even before the actual merits of the case are properly examined.
Sometimes, delays occur because reports are incomplete, documents are improperly prepared, investigations move slowly, or incorrect details are forwarded. On paper, these may appear to be mere procedural lapses. In reality, however, the consequences are borne almost entirely by the accused and their family.
While files continue moving slowly through procedural channels, the emotional burden on families intensifies every day. People outside the legal system often hear only the words “criminal case” without understanding the facts, delays, or procedural complications involved.
That made me realize another difficult truth about litigation — sometimes, the process itself begins to feel like punishment long before the final outcome arrives.
Get Tejasvee’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
I also observed how many ordinary people enter police stations or courtrooms without properly understanding their rights, legal language, or procedural safeguards. Many rely entirely on others because they are frightened, confused, or simply unaware.
One judgment frequently studied in criminal law is D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, where the Supreme Court laid down safeguards against custodial abuse and illegal detention.
As students, these safeguards appear exceptionally strong on paper. Yet, in reality, many ordinary people still do not fully understand their rights during police questioning or investigation. Fear, pressure, lack of awareness, and social influence often prevent individuals from confidently asserting those protections.
Another important judgment is Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors., (2021) 1 SCC 184, in which the Supreme Court directed the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and investigative agencies to ensure transparency and accountability.
As a law student, when I first studied this judgment, it genuinely appeared to be a strong safeguard for ordinary citizens.
Practically, however, I later understood that reality is far more complicated.
There are still several “blind spots” inside police stations — areas where cameras do not adequately cover activities or where practical loopholes continue to exist. I personally observed how these gaps can reduce the effectiveness of safeguards that landmark judgments attempt to provide.
That was the moment I truly understood the difference between protections articulated in judicial decisions and their actual implementation on the ground.
Even the practical implementation of safeguards laid down in cases such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal can be weakened when transparency mechanisms themselves are not fully effective in practice.
Similarly, in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369, the Supreme Court recognized the Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In textbooks, this appears to be a powerful constitutional safeguard. Yet, in reality, courtrooms remain filled with people waiting years because of procedural delays, repeated adjournments, case backlogs, and slow-moving processes.
There is another well-known statement:
“Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.” — Lord Hewart
After closely observing court proceedings and personally experiencing legal pressure, I came to understand how essential fairness and public trust truly are. Even when procedures are technically followed, delays and practical difficulties can still leave ordinary people feeling helpless.
Films and social media often portray litigation as dramatic courtroom arguments followed by swift justice. Reality, however, is very different. Sometimes, files move slower than emotions, and patience becomes more important than aggression.
I also realized that litigation is not merely about sections, provisions, or case laws. Behind every file are real people dealing with fear, stress, financial burden, family pressure, and uncertainty.
There is a statement by Justice P.N. Bhagwati that I now understand far more deeply:
“The judiciary must become the judiciary of the masses and not merely the classes.”
After witnessing how many ordinary people struggle with legal language, procedural complexity, and lack of awareness, I realized how vital accessibility and legal awareness truly are in India.
At the same time, these experiences transformed my understanding of law itself. Earlier, I believed litigation revolved solely around arguments and judgments. Today, I understand that advocacy also demands patience, emotional balance, practical wisdom, communication skills, and the ability to remain composed under pressure.
These experiences also encouraged me to look beyond traditional litigation. Law is evolving rapidly into fields such as Cyber Law, Competition Law, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Arbitration, Legal Technology, and Data Privacy. The legal profession today demands not only academic knowledge but also a practical understanding of how systems function in reality.
This article is not written from a purely textbook perspective. It is written through observation, experience, reality, and the silent lessons that courtrooms teach every day.
Earlier, I studied law academically.
Now, I am slowly beginning to understand law practically.
Still learning. Still observing. Still trying to understand the system better every day.
