Mr. Champion of Justice

Hello All,

Couple of minutes ago, I was watching the interview of Mr. Ram Jethmalani by Mr. Karan Thappar. How do you take this ? Was Mr. Thappar provoking him or  was Mr. Jethmalani too old to handle this kind of interviews? LOL  .... If he continued to have such temperament, I am wondering how would he win the cases. In some articles, it was revealed that he charges the client around 10 lakhs per day and pays the tax around 1.5 crores every alternate day ... I don't know the truth in it, but disgusting to hear his defending killers and goons.



no comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



Karan wants that no one defends a convict whom he thinks is a criminal. For fair judgment both parties have rights to keep there point and i don't think Mr. Jethmalani have done anything wrong its his duty to defend his client. Thats what he is paid for .....


Sure, I'd agree if he were some other lawyer who happened to pick the case randomly. But in his case, most of them were famous and controverdial cases. why is that ? Isn't it obvious that he works only for money, not for justice! I agree that sometimes a lawyer has to believe whatever his client relates him a story in order to win the case, it all depends on lawyer's  discretion & how it is perceived. In Mr. Jethmalani's case it is more evident that he plays with the loop holes that he could find in our Judiciary System than a fair argument (Please see the arguments he had made in the case of Jessica Lall,  there were numerous instances of argument shuffle, every day). Having such a vast experience in the fields of law, which is certainly undisputed, that too more than 50 years as a leading advocate, he would be honored more than a Judge. Defending such cases would not really suit his stature. At one point, he hypocritically said to Mr. Thappar '... don't insult Indian Judicial System by saying advocates play tricks ... ' . I am terribly confused :)             

Whoever reads this thread, please take it as a debate only. From the depths of my heart, I am not trying to offend anyone, instead learning from you all.


'Let Hundred Guilty Be Acquitted But One Innocent Should Not Be Convicted'


I looked up the Bar Council of India's code of conduct (difficult to find online It says
"15. It shall be the duty of an advocate fearlessly to uphold the interests of his client by all fair and honourable means without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or any other. He shall defend a person accused of a crime regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, bearing in mind that his loyalty is to the law which requires that no man should be convicted without adequate evidence."

So, he has to defend the guy irrespective of his personal opinion. And he must defend him to the best of his ability. So, despite the fact that you (and I) think Manu Sharma is scumball,Mr. Jethmalani is following the code of conduct of his profession.  Right to a legal counsel and to argue one’s case is one of the primary traits of a democratic state.Do you have a problem with someone defending him or is your problem restricted to Jethmalani defending him? If it is the latter, then I must add that it is Jethmalani’s professional choice. If his client is proven guilty, it will affect him professionally. And after all, someone must defended him.

A lawyer's relationship to justice and wisdom is on a par with a piano tuner's relationship to a concert. He neither composes the music, nor interprets it-he merely keeps the machinery running.”Lucille Kallen quotes



First, let me thank you for the explanation and finding out the advocate's duty to the client as per 'Professional Conduct and Etiquette' which I couldn't find it on the web. 

Well, I never denied the advocate's right to defend his client regardless of his personal opinion on the truth. I am only concerned about his deceiving or misleading the court intentionally with a fabricated information. Is it not a mis-conduct? If yes, then morality comes into the picture then national interest is involved. This point is not mentioned in the code of conduct, am I missing anything here? The closest one I found is S.4 ... Please clarify !

"4. An advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the court, opposing counsel or parties which the advocates himself ought not to do. An advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouth-piece of the client, and shall exercise his own judgement in the use of restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate language during arguments in court."

Dear Raman,

It is the duty of the court to see that whether any person is guilty or not. EVERYONE HAS A FULL RIGHT TO AVAIL THE BEST LEGAL SERVICES, REST IT IS THE DUTY OF  COURT. True, a lawyer has to accept a brief to defend his client due to his so called professional obligations and oaths taken at the time of entering the Bar. He is as duty bound to do his best to get his client off the hook, by picking up loop holes in the prosecution story, to make as many cock and bull stories as he likes to create a doubt in the mind of the judge. No issues.
BUT, it is normally not the case with the hallowed members of the bar. Their modus operandi is to nefariously fabricate evidence, assist criminals in getting false forensic reports and knowingly mislead the court, which the judges glibly swallow. By a magic wand a Car turns into a truck, witnesses vanish into thin air. It is not their legal acumen or razor sharp intellect, but outright obnoxiously nauseating patently illegal tricks, which more often than not pull criminals off the hook. Let’s go beyond lamenting & see what we do to ensure justice, this time around.
1) Can we ensure that the police/Governments  doing their best in gathering & placing evidence & ensuring compliance to procedures.
2) That the prosecution lawyer is the best & can take on  Mr.Jethmalani.
3) Lets turn this apparent brilliance of Mr. Jethmalani on him. ( bcoz  he has all the right to defend anybody)

Awesome, Shree. we finally have churned out the discussion with the line that you mentioned below point (3). Therefore, I dare to say that there is no difference between the modus operandi of an accomplice and a nefarious lawyer. So, the final bearer of this Olympic torch is this lawyer who begs the Lords to extinguish the flames to continue the game. I am just kidding here ... Your points made me think in a new direction. Thank you so much for your time.



Dear Raman,

Thanks for the invitation to contribute!!! I wish you all the best.

Total likes : 1 times




Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


  Search Forum



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
Muslim Personal Law     |    x