Intellectual Property Rights: Practice and Drafting by Adv Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


Lawyers, you are Liars,co-rapists,co-thieves,co-murderers.

Just because a rapist/murderer/thief/gangster/terrorist offers you a good amount of money,you get ready to save him,knowing well that your client is guilty,you do end less efforts to save him/her.And this you call  loyalty to your   profession.Without understanding that if you save a rapist,indirectly you yourself have raped that innocent girl.If you help a tenant(who even does not pay the rent) in grabbing the property of a 70 years old widow,you ,yourself have grabbed the property of that old lady who died on the roads because she could not generate money through that property to live a good life.Can't you see,If you help the criminals,you yourself have become their partners indirectly ?

I heard that Gandhi Ji (though I do not like many of his ideas) used to fight the cases of only who were done nothing wrong ethically.Money was no reason for him to choose a case to fight.

Most of you are just reason for wrong doings in our society,please look into yourself,then only answer and do not ignore my topic.Just answer, if you have the courage to face yourself.Also spread this topic to all the lawyer friends or foes of yours.And challenge them also to answer it.


 25 Replies








1 Like

Arvind Singh Chauhan (advocate)     01 July 2010

Is it ethical or moral for a doctor, not to treat a patient who is a terrorist or rapist , who has been betaten by public ?

Gandhi Ji have already said-" Pap se ghrina karo papi se nahin".

Defending a criminal does not mean, defending a crime.

If  lawyers are liable then, all the investigating agency, society, including judges, are liable who remain unable to punish a well known criminal.?

Don’t you think that during the period of Britishers all our national freedom fighter were antinational elements and criminals in the eye of law.?

Morality can not be compared with duty. ?

To some extent it can be said that after every sin there is money, which can not be dispensed with, But still there are lot of lawyers also, who are from prosperous back ground providing free legal aid.

Who is liable if a judge appoints lawyer, to give legal aid to a criminal . Judge? Lawyer or Criminal ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????. 

1 Like

Prakash Yedhula (Lawyer)     01 July 2010

It's tempting to think that a person must be guilty because the police arrested him or her for something. However, the law has a much different standard for judging when an arrest is valid versus when a conviction is called for. 

Here's an example: A woman tells the police that a man stole her purse. The police ask the man and he denies knowing anything about the purse. Finally, the purse cannot be located. Under Probable Cause, there would be enough to justify arresting the man since the woman said he stole her purse. Do we know whether or not he did it? No. Should we let the Court System determine whether or not the man is guilty? Of course!

The Court System is our best attempt at creating a process that is fair. Like any system, however, it is only as good as the people who work within it. Defending people accused of crimes is not about "helping them get away with it," rather it is about ensuring that everyone is treated fairly.

1 Like

unique horn (self)     01 July 2010


             Lawyers saves the above said criminals with help of  the holes in  Law. That was  not there mistake, it's the mistake of the Law-makers to make amendments in law for time to time . we are now in 2010 and following the law made for peoples of 1820's. For my eyes the Law-makers was responsible for all that you said.

Arup (UNEMPLOYED)     01 July 2010








1 Like

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     01 July 2010

First of all one need to note that we are living under the Rule of  Law and that is the reason why even a criminals loke Kasab was tried and based on evidence ge was condemned. Why even God gave Adam and Eve an opportunity before they were driven out from the Garden of Eden, that is why trial is necesary before a person is condemned. do you wish that all accused person be condemned without trial and to hang them straight away without trial? Can you imagine what will happened if we adopt such course? The administration of Justice in this country is based on the principles that it is better to let off ten guilty person than to condemned one innocent person.

1 Like




Instead of treating the black spots on the face it is always easy to blame the mirror...


None is ready to face the truth and making one pretext oe the other.


If we say "BLACK" for "BLACK" it seems bad.  So if we use to say "LITTLE DARK" for "BLACK" the colour do not go changed.  If we do not like the "BLACK" why should not treat even "LITTLE DARK".  We finish our efforts IN WORDS.


If the Parrot close the eyes and think that the Cat is disappeared from there...

1 Like

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     01 July 2010

Of course a doctor ethics does not allow them to see who is the patient. Like wise advocates too should protect the right and interest of their client. Still there are advocates who are selective in taking brief. It is no doubt that there are large numbers of  black sheeps or devils' advocated have entered into this profession. But clients too have become clever and they approach an advocate as per the type of work has to be done. Degradation of morality and ethics is everywhere, in every profession.

As per "Swami Vivekanand" everyone is equally responsible for the evil present in the society.

Theoretically it is a clean and nobel profession. Difference between humans and animals is of law.

What I have read is Gown of advocates used to have a pocket in the back, and whatever client wish to pay, used to put money in the pocket from the back side.

"Bar and Bench are two important organ of the judiciary/judicial system”.  And in prevailing situation of the country role/resposibility of  advocates have become more significant.

Once commenting on adverse possession in Sh. Deep Chand vs Sh. Kulanand Lakhera And Ors. on 17 April, 2007 Justice Pradeep Nandrajog,

 11. This concept of law relating to possession has been a source of fertile litigation and if I may use the expression, a lawyer's delight and a Judge's despair.”

2 Like

Baskaran Kanakasabai (entrepreneur)     01 July 2010


The anger, frustration and agony behind your query is quite logical and understandable although it does not appear to be the ideal way of addressing the society of lawmen as a whole.If there has been a mechanism or system available anywhere in the world that can judge flawlessly and without trial as to who is guilty and as to who is not, and deliver justice expressly and perfectly like expresso coffee like a vending machine,you would not have queried so.

Before the advent of the system of fair trials, probably there would have been no advocacy for the accused and once someone was accused, punishment would have been pronounced unilaterally, without a trial.Then too there was the probability of injustice being delivered, because of favouritism or vengeance or partiality or bad reasoning or imperfect logic.

Only with the idea of improving the quality of justice administration, fair trials were introduced.The foremost disturbing factor is not the issue of advocating for a person popularly known or publicised to be guilty, but the fact that justice is denied or delayed  even after such fair trials.

As long as justice prevails no one would  get frustrated or aggrieved. But it does not prevail all the time.That is what is painful. You would not have got frustrated if the 70 year old widow was not deprived of her property. You were disturbed only when she was delivered injustice. Therefore all boils down to justice, as to whether it is delivered or not.

Wikipedia defines:The presumption of innocence (the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty) is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).

So, every one is presumed innocent until and unless proved otherwise. That creates the need for a fair trial which creates the need for advocating both parties of the case. What should be desired is timely justice at the end of the trial. That is what is eluding quite frequently. That is what the system is lacking and that is what is not desirable.

As sri.Assumi pointed out, Sir William Blackstone's ratio which is acknowledged worldwide, as a principle behind jusicial systems in civilized societies, calls fpr a fair trial. It sounds absolutely fair and inevitable in order to bring out the truth. One will understand perfectly the need for a trial of both parties to a case, when such person, while innocent  gets accused of a crime or fault.

I guess there should be a number of lawmen who would not advocate for Kasab even if  the entire richess of the world is given to them as their fees. But not every case is so clear about the guilt of the accused.

I, as a non lawman, would request  lawmen not to get offended by the query, considering the agony behind the query, which I presume has been caused by injustice prevailing in the society.

1 Like


Mr. ARUN,I too condemn you.Whatsoever I wrote is a hard reality.No advocate leave case on ethical grounds.I have seen most of the advocates are well aware that their clients are guilty and involved in some thing illegal,yet they go on helping them,how can you justify that.

Now as you have condemned me ,bring out the logics against me,if you can.

Society never says to advocates to save the culprits,it is their own thinking,my dear Mr.Arun.

Arvind Singh Chauhan (advocate)     02 July 2010

I would like to ask here. Lawyers are generally condemned. Would any body dare to condemn a judge or court, openly against the acquittal of well known criminal. No! because there is fear of contemp of court. After all, judges or courts are not bound with the pleading of a defence lawyer. Don't they do their duty for their bread or money?

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     02 July 2010

Arvind, I have noted your posting with deep interest, keep up the good works. We can understand the anger and frustration of Madhu trigerred by the systems, but the facts remain that it is the lawyer who argued in the court but the final touches comes from the Judge in the form of Judgment. Let the world go on with the condemnation of lawyers with the kind of lawyers are liars etc; but our duty to our clients should go on as reposed on the lawyers.


Dear Madhu,

I want to talk to u in person. U can call me at 9871158578

Bhartiya No. 1 (Nationalist)     02 July 2010

Hello Madhuji,

Here I differ with your opinion. As u have written "I have seen most of the advocates are well aware that their clients are guilty and involved in some thing illegal,yet they go on helping them,how can you justify that."

It is the duty of investigation agencies and Court to declare anyone guilty not of Lawyers/advocates. An accused person takes the shelter of an lawyer for his benefit/relief, and duty of a lawyer is to protect his Interest accordingly, since he is his client whether he is right or wrong.

Lot of doctors are in organ trade or in other illegal activity. A doctors duty is to remove the bullet from a wounded person, not to see whether he is a murderer or rapist. It is the duty of investigation agencies.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register