Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

Is Advocacy a REAL PROFESSION? How is this existing?

 

Is Advocacy a REAL PROFESSION? How is this existing? Why justice system is so critical?


If so,


Is this not the fundamental right of every citizen to have justice and is this not the duty of the Government to provide justice to a citizen?  Is this not the duty of the Government to bear expenses collectively for all the citizens?

 

Is this not the fundamental right of the citizens;

 

To have food?

 

To live secure life?

 

To have drinking water

 

To have cloths?

 

To have a shelter?

 

To have working opportunity to earn for survival? Is this not the duty of the Government to provide work for all citizens?

***********

 

 

Please also have a review on the following subjects;

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/SHOULD-ADVOCACY-BE-A-PUBLIC-SERVICE--20251.asp   (I want it)

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/CAN-JUSTICE-BE-PROVIDED-WITHOUT-MONEY-OR-IT-ONLY-FOR-RICH-20085.asp

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/JUDICIARY-FOR-ALL-INDIANS-OR-SALE-JUSTICE-TO-CUSTOMER--20111.asp

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/WHO-ARE-THE-MAIN-ACCUSED-FOR-CORRUPTION-IN-JUDICIARY-20190.asp

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/WHO-IS-RESPONSIBLE-FOR-JUSTICE-JUDICIARY-OR-GOVERNMENY--20526.asp

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/JUSTICE-IS-THE-PRINCIPLE-DEMOCRATIC-RIGHT--20511.asp

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/RIGHT-TO-JUSTICE-ACT-JUSTICE-DELAYED-IS-JUSTICE-DENIED--20347.asp



Learning

 34 Replies

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     15 November 2010

Is Advocacy a REAL PROFESSION?

-  yes, ofcourse. where lies the dobt? it is just like a profession of engineer or doctor.

 

How is this existing?

-  it exists by it's own virtue.

we read some laws, and think that we understood the law. but the fact is not  so easy.

you have to take all laws and judgments in the concerned field. thereafter to build up the legal opinion.

only a professional, full timer can do this successfully.

like a quack doctor or engineer a few quack lawyers also there. please do not build up your impression on the basis of them.

mahatma gandhi; neheruji; zinna sahab  and a long list is there - who are the product of law schools.

 

 Why justice system is so critical?

 -  yas it is a genuine question. i answered it in your other thread.


(Guest)
Originally posted by :Ram Samudre-DRF KABEERPANTHI
"
 

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Re-Re-Re-LAWYERS-NOT-ALLOWED-IN-FAMILY-COURT-CHENNAI-26924.asp?1=1&offset=4
"

 

 

 

Originally posted by :Ram Samudre-DRF KABEERPANTHI
"



Originally posted by :Avnish Kaur



"


The Principal Judge of Chennai-Family Court has sent out this circular to strictly follow sec 13 of the Family Courts Act. This means lawyers are kept at abeyance and cannot walk in and represent clients.

"




 

At a glance it is a VERY GOOD NEWS. The justice system should be as simple so there should be no need of professional lawyer / advocate.  In this process to make the justice system free from professional advocacy those lawyers/advocates may opt other business like PAN-SHOP, KIRANA STORE, GENERAL STORE AND and many other jobs which people do and those who have no other option for any reason they may get guaranteed employment in NAREGA too.

 

BUT JUSTICE SHOULD BE AS SIMPLE AS NATURAL FOR ALL IRRESPECTIVE OF RICH OR POOR.
"

 

Here is the topic of this thread regarding general transaction in people & advocates and neither it is related with Lincon, Obama & Gandhiji nor every advocate is like them.

First, this profession originates with a negative source and that is critical justice system is made so no survive without hiring the advocate and poor people are not treated as human being.  

 

IT IS AN INJUSTICE SYSTEM OF INDIA AND IT IS INDIAN JUDICIARY WHICH IS GIVES JUSTICE (MONEY) TO JUDGES AND LAWYERS FROM AND NO ENTRY FOR 47 CRORE POOR PEOPLE OF INDIA.  YES THE POOR PEOPLE GET POOR ADVOCACY FROM GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ADVOCATES WHO TAKES ASSURED MONEY FROM GOVERNMENT BUT NO ATTENTION TO WIN THE CASE DUE TO NO ATTRACTION OF UNJUSTIFIED FEES FROM PEOPLE.

 

Democratic Indian (n/a)     16 November 2010

I have a little different view. I do not think "lawyer" is the problem. Problem is the role money is playing in providing justice. All people seeking justice are at liberty to decide if they want to be represented by a lawyer or they want appear as "party in person" in courts.
1 Like

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     16 November 2010

i support mr democratic indian.

when i understood that my lawyer working against me under the inflence of opposite party, thereafter i always stand 'in person'. but the problem was not ended there, surprisingly i found the 'just was purchased' by the openant.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     16 November 2010

today i read a article of tehelka regarding adv shanti bhushan and his son adv prasant bhushan.

surprisingly i found there that adv shanti and adv prashant telling almost the same thingh what mr ram indicating here. there figghting continuing against corrupted judges.

shanti bhushan refused to apologies desparately. he tells that he will prefer to go to jail instead of seaking apology to corrupt judges.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     16 November 2010

here is the story.

The House Of Bhushan

 

Judicial accountability is the latest passion for public good that drives the legendary father-son lawyer duo of Shashi and Prashant Bhushan, writes VIJAY SIMHA

 

ASLIM BALDING man with content eyes walks in a little after six one evening, into a basement in Jangpura, New Delhi’s reasonably upmarket colony. There are 40 people already there, mostly college students, squatting on the wooden floor. Watching them, from on the walls, are the greats: Che Guevara, Marlon Brando, Alfred Hitchcock and Federico Fellini. The man with the deliberate eyes, Prashant Bhushan, a lawyer, is whom everyone is waiting for.

 

This is the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform (CJAR), a group of common people whose sense of outrage is driving them into uncommon pursuit. Like most Indians, this group has been raised on the belief that the country’s system of justice is a template of integrity. But, for about 30 minutes before Prashant arrives, the group has been listening to stories of how corruption is rotting the judiciary.

It is Prashant’s job to make the interest work. Over the next half hour, Prashant, 52, goes over the nitty-gritty of India’s first public campaign to punish corrupt judges, and bring the system to book. It’s about time as well. An Independence Day arrangement unravelled in Chandigarh when the munshi of the Haryana Additional Advocate General, Sandeep Bansal, delivered a packet to the security guard of a High Court judge. The guard thought it was a bomb, and opened the packet. There was Rs 15 lakh inside. Bansal was sacked and arrested, and the case is on. It’s the newest example of what Prashant and the CJAR are battling: greed in robes.

None of this was part of Prashant’s plans in his younger days. “I took a circuitous route. I was in the IIT Madras, which I quit after a semester in Mechanical Engineering. I studied economics and then philosophy (of science) at Princeton. I quit the course, as I would have had to study another four years of Physics.” Finally, he returned to India to gain a law degree from Allahabad University.

An early big fight was the Doon Valley case, where limestone quarrying was hurting the environment. He then did the Bhopal gas tragedy litigation, and the Narmada case as well. He was the Delhi President of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, India’s oldest human rights organisation. He also wrote a book on the Rs 64-crore Bofors scandal of the late 1980s, involving payoffs in the supply of howitzers to the Indian government.

Prashant’s father is Shanti Bhushan, 83, who was union minister for law in the Morarji Desai government (1977-79). They live in the same house in Noida, adjacent to Delhi. Both are outraged by the corruption among judges. The father thinks small parties are a disgrace. He is impressed by the achievements of the UPA Government and is likely to vote for the Congress. The son thinks that the UPA Government is among the weakest that India has had. He is likely to vote for the BSP. The father is not anti-America. The son is strongly against the US and the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement. Together, they are formidable public warriors, among India’s best.

On August 7, the father and son were part of a drama in the Supreme Court. The court was hearing what is called the Ghaziabad PF scam. For about eight years, a nazir, a court official, is alleged to have pilfered money from the Provident Fund (PF) account (a social security scheme where an employer and an employee contribute an equal amount every month to be given to the employee usually at retirement). The nazir was kept in the post by three judges as he wrote fake applications and withdrew money from the PF account.

A vigilance officer broke the scam. The nazir confessed and named many district and High Court judges. The name of a sitting Supreme Court judge has also been taken. Apparently, the nazir paid sums up to Rs 1 lakh at a time to the judges, paid for the construction of houses in a few cases, gifted some judges cell phones and air-conditioners, and even paid for their family shopping. Furniture was shipped to the Kolkata home of the sitting Supreme Court judge’s son, the nazir’s confessions apparently said.

A three-judge bench headed by Justice BN Agrawal was hearing the case. Agrawal and Shanti Bhushan have known each other for a while. Both men have reputations for integrity. Six years ago, Agrawal accosted Shanti Bhushan at a party and asked him what he thought of a High Court judge, whose name was up for promotion to the Supreme Court. Shanti Bhushan said the man was corrupt. Following this, Agrawal is believed to have opposed the corrupt judge’s promotion. So, they relied on the other’s sense of fair play.

In Agrawal’s court, Shanti Bhushan spoke of Sir Grimwood Mears, Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court in 1930. Word had once reached Mears that four judges were indulging in corrupt practices. Mears called four CID officers and asked them to investigate. The four judges were found corrupt. Mears called them by telegram, showed each one of them the evidence collected by the CID against them. Mears offered two choices: quit or face action. They quit.

Shanti Bhushan contrasted this with today, where no action can be taken against a judge unless the Chief Justice of India permits it.

He also mentioned that the Registrar-General of the Supreme Court told the investigating officer in the Ghaziabad PF scam to submit a written questionnaire to the Chief Justice of India before talking to the suspects. Shanti Bhushan had asked the court to summon the Registrar-General as a witness in the case.

AGRAWAL WAS livid. He said Shanti Bhushan was targeting the judiciary and arguing like a street urchin. By then, Prashant, also in court, was furious as well. He said the judge was twisting what his father had said. Three good judges of integrity. Three angry men. The clash made headlines the next day.

“I don’t hold a grudge against Agrawal for calling me a street urchin. You can call me anything you want. My grudge is that he is not taking action against the corrupt. Agrawal lost his balance,” says Shanti Bhushan. “He was misrepresenting my father’s arguments. Agrawal was loud, and was offensive and arrogant. There is a limit to tolerance. My anger was rising all the time,” says Prashant. His voice is raised and he is banging the table. It’s like he is back in court.

It’s a few moments before there is calm. Prashant asks for digestive biscuits (“My digestion is not strong. I eat papaya everyday”). The next hearing in the Ghaziabad PF case is slated for September 9. Which is why the CJAR is hurrying. They want stickers on the backs of autos, and posters and placards. They want the people to know there’s a crucial case coming up, which could well punish corrupt judges.

“The judges will be scared, and angry,” says Prashant. “The campaign has to go public to have an impact. It has to become visible.” Prashant figures that there are only two ways that the war against corruption in judiciary can be won. Either there is an open and shut case (like in a sting operation, for instance), or there is public scandal. Prashant and the CJAR can’t do sting operations. They don’t know how to go about it. So, they are going to the people.

The CJAR was formed in March 2007, the result of many vexing meetings of its precursor, the Committee on Judicial Accountability. “We formed the Committee in 1990, consisting of some lawyers and ex-judges. We found it impossible to expand or grow. There was barely a lawyer willing to take a stand against judges, or even to seek accountability. So we had to go the people. That’s when the Campaign came about,” says Prashant.

Prashant came to law because of the Justice V Ramaswami case. Justice Ramaswami was a Supreme Court judge, brought for impeachment before the Lok Sabha in 1993. There were many charges of corruption against Ramaswami but the impeachment motion failed. “This was a case of a brazen and thoroughly corrupt judge and it was impossible to catch him. Impeachment doesn’t work. You can’t get even 50 to 100 MPs to sign up for an impeachment. Nobody wants to annoy the judges. It is a case of loot and let loot,” says Prashant.

He wants to debunk the myth of a clean judiciary. He looks to the day when there will be no lawyers. When the system becomes transparent and honest, so that everyone can negotiate it by themselves.

Shanti Bhushan came to the law in 1943 when a case, Zameer Qasim versus the Emperor, caught his attention. “It had to do with an issue of law under the Criminal Procedure Code. It was about a man convicted in two cases. The case was referred to a full bench. My father was a Public Prosecutor. Many jurors and police officers used to come to his office for this case. I was hugely interested in the intellectual exercise that the case demanded,” says Shanti Bhushan. He had to fight his father’s reluctance to send his son into law, because the father feared that his son would struggle for the first few years, like all lawyers who took to law in those days.

The Public Prosecutor took Shanti Bhushan to the famous Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, a respected lawyer during the British Raj, hoping that Sir Sapru would knock some sense into the young man. “Sir Sapru was astonished that a man of my father’s standing in the legal profession did not want his son to be a lawyer. He dismissed my father’s objections and asked me to become a lawyer.”

The father needn’t have worried. Shanti Bhushan filed his Income Tax Return (ITR) in his first year as an advocate, showing an income of Rs 6,600 when the minimum required annual income for filing ITRS was Rs 2,500. “So, you see, I didn’t have to struggle,” he says.

He looks to the day when a couple of judges are sent to jail for corruption now. “Otherwise wind up the judiciary. A corrupt judiciary makes no sense. It has utility only if it is totally objective. You have the power to rule over people’s lives. How can you be anything but completely clean?”

The elder Bhushan defines a corrupt judge as one who will take money to decide a case. To the Bhushans, it’s a mystery why the system wants to protect the corrupt. Maybe because they think the judiciary is a family. And punishing a member of the family will cause everyone in the family pain. Or because they think the image and the effectiveness of the judiciary will suffer.

Prashant says he is around because nobody else was emerging from the fraternity. “I didn’t want this role of a campaigner. But the legal fraternity is a peculiar set of animals with extremely low levels of interest outside themselves. They are not my friends.” The hurt is personal as well. Prashant’s wife was a lawyer too. She gave up. “She found the courts an unpleasant workplace. She couldn’t stand the uncouth behaviour in the courts, and the long wait for cases to be disposed off.”

So, she put her energies into raising their three sons, the eldest of whom is preparing to leave for Oxford. And, sweetest of all, Prashant says he’s beginning to get the mileage. You can see some of it as the youngsters swarm around him after the CJAR meeting in Jangpura. They are looking for a mentor.

Prashant’s head begins to bob as he answers eager questions. Someone passes him a cup of black tea. It’s like what happened after Amartya Sen delivered the Hiren Mukherjee Lecture in Parlaiment on August 11. “MPs came over and congratulated me for standing my ground in Agrawal’s court,” he says.

Just as well, because Prashant estimates that “every fourth judge in the Supreme Court is corrupt.” That’s a lot of work. As for the father, Shanti Bhushan, he is busy correcting the proofs of his forthcoming memoirs.

WRITER’S E-MAIL
vijay@tehelka.com

 

From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 35, Dated Sept 06, 2008


(Guest)

 

Dear Democratic Indian, the "problem" is that there should be no role of money and justice should be a birth right for every citizen.  There should be no option as this is not a matter of food so that poor will have low quality and limited quantity at ration shop and rich can have basmati rice.  Justice meant equal for each & everyone. And this is very first time I am disappointed by your views.  I respect you very much but here I am sorry.

Democratic Indian (n/a)     18 November 2010

Samudreji, I too respect you a lot and I am saddened to know that you are dissappointed. Believe me, I will never dissapoint you. Probably I was not able to explain my views properly. But I think, all different view points need to be discussed in order to narrow down to reach correct views.

Let us discuss where is the real "problem". Equality before law is guaranteed for all citizens by our Constitution. Court fees are already very less. Let the court fees be increased to cover the actual cost of running the courts, at the same time BPL people can be provided free or subsidized court service. The money is not the problem in itself, money has the role in every activity we do in modern society. We are now using computers, computers are consuming electricity and money is being spent by us for electricity and repairs of the computers. Judicial system needs money to run, money is playing role. The problem is the illegal "influence" of money on justice delivery. It starts from investigation stage by police, public prosecuters etc. who takes bribes to do faulty investigation, faulty case preperation etc. If you remove only the lawyers, what difference will it make, people will start paying bribes directly to judges. If lawyers are misleading judges, judges are not so much innocent that they do not understand what lawyers are doing. Judges are sitting on the high seat of responsibility. With responsibility, comes in equal measure of accountability. Why only make lawyers unemployed? Are we also willing to the remove the police from investigation because money is influencing investigation? The main problem is that there is no accountability of police, judges or any bureucrat for that matter. There is no way to check their performance, if the case is going from lower courts to High Courts, if High Courts find the case has not been properly judged as per law i.e quality of judgments is poor, it should reflect in the performance report card of judge of lower court for the purpose of promotion, salary increment etc. Similarly High Court and Supreme Court judges have to be made accountable to their performance on basis of quality of judgments given by them. Similar performance reporting should be done for investigation officers of police, public prosecuters etc. If he is sending 100 cases to court and his 90 cases are getting defeated in court, then what kind of investigation he is doing? In short they should justify their salary. If they can't they should be shown the door for exit.

1 Like

(Guest)

 

Thank you Democratic Indian. Yes you are saying very correct.  Now see, if I would have not asked you to clarify your view point, I would have left such sensitively important things.

 

Regarding accountability we have already discussed in the thread "Increase in retirement age of HC Judges 62 to 65".

 

For accountability the people have to be ever alert and constant watch on their public servants.  Without help and/or knowing to the bureaucrats and their subordinates so called politicians, ministers, MP/MLA cannot do any corruption.  All are within a syndicate.  SABHI PAAPI CORRUPTION KI GANGA ME DUBKIYAN LAGAANE KE COMPETITION ME LAGE HUYE HAIN AUR NEEDY PEOPLE PAANI KE BINA PYAASA TADAP RAHE HAIN.

3 Like

Democratic Indian (n/a)     18 November 2010

Thank you Samudreji for understanding my view. I would like to further explain the view for sake of clarity, that law and justice is nothing but very strong logic and reasoning codified by society. Article 14 of our Constitution says "Equality before law.—The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." If we say to pass a law, to not allow anybody to take help of lawyers, it will become violation of Article 14. One may ask how? If there are no lawyers to represent both the partys fighting case in court, then one party who is knowing the law better than the other will get unequal advantage, and Article 14 will get violated for the other party who does not know the law very well. Because of this, so that one party or the other cannot be treated unequally before law, they are been given opportunity and liberty to decide as per their wish if they need to take help from lawyer/s of their choice. They also have the freedom to refuse to take help of their present lawyer/s or change the lawyer/s anytime. If any party cannot afford a lawyer, if desired by the party state appoints a lawyer to help the party. A lawyer charging lower or higher fees does not mean his knowledge of the is laws less or more, nor does it mean he is less or more honest than the other lawyer.
1 Like

(Guest)

Dear Democratic Indian, would you like to say something in regard to my thread "Should Advocacy be a public service"? It is yet my clear opinion that providing justice to every citizen is a main duty of a democratic Government.  Please help me to develop this.  All friends here are welcomed for their bold views, I more welcome to those gives opposite views than mine. Those are in support of my view they are expected to give more wide range in all aspects.

 

2 Like

Democratic Indian (n/a)     18 November 2010

Certainly Samudreji, I will read your thread "Should Advocacy be a public service" and express my opinion there. In my opinion the main duty of Government is to completely abide by the Constitution and respect it always so that injustice is kept to the minimum. Government will do this ONLY and ONLY if it is under the fear of people. We can make 100 Constitutions, provide the best and the most flawless Constitution in world, it will always fail if there is no fear of people. The people gave a written Constitution to themselves UNDER which the government is working. If government respects Constitution, getting justice will not become a primary expectation of people neither it will become a primary duty of government. More injustice, more people cry for justice and vice versa. Your opinion says "providing justice to every citizen is a main duty of a democratic Government" is an expectation because you(including all people) see injustice going on all around. If we see around 70% cases filed in Courts by people is against government. It shows that government is the biggest injustice creator, then how are we expecting justice from an injustice creator? If government is abiding by Constitution honestly, then why so many cases against government? I mention again, that the 2nd Amendment to the American Constitution was not done due to some foolish or impractical reasons. It was done so that if the injustice by government becomes so great, and the power of ballot paper is subverted by criminals and becomes a joke, people have the power to overthrow such a government as a last resort and save their Constitution. If President of America attends any public meeting anywhere in America, fully armed citizens with any kind of arms can attend his meeting. It is fully supported by Constitution. Presidents body guards or anybody cannot disarm the citizens. The President is well within the range of firearms of the citizens. This is the true and ultimate test of democracy, where true representatives of people do not feel scared by armed citizens surrounding them. Also fully armed citizens can go to polling booths to cast their votes. No criminal can dare to threaten them or do booth capture or contest elections by intimidating voters like in India because every citizen is armed.
1 Like

(Guest)

Great Democratic Indian.

(Anymore word from me here will fail the digest system of many so only these three words)

2 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register