No Need of Advocates at All for Justice !!!

Exactly Anil sir,

Jahangir is most famous for his golden "chain of justice." The chain was setup as a link between his people and Jahangir himself. Standing outside the castle of Agra with sixty bells, anyone was capable of pulling the chain and having a personal hearing from Jahangir himself.

Had he ever employed any advocate or was there any prerequisite qualification to do the justice? A villager can do better justice.

Here the topic is whether do we actully need advocates at all for justice? Can not we evolve a system where advocates are not needed as was being done in the past before British Period.

It is rightly observed that

It is rightly observed that "Judgments are delivered and not Justice",

And offcourse there is a lot of difference between the two mentioned above.

Jaiswalji,

I too feel that there is no middleman requred between the judge and a common man. Can one think of having some kind of formal training to the common man desiring to get justice, basic information in law and court procedures etc ? I think some NGOs are doing work in this field. But however, later on even these agencies replace lawyers and crave for popularity and power. It is a bad luck of the country that every thing that has a good stardt ends up getting corrupt.

Hi All,

Don't you feel Law should be a compulsary subject in education  ....?

I do fell lawyers are not required in Courts whereas lawyers are required to give advices to the parties. it is similar to: Doctors are required to refer the medicine (prescripttion) not to make the medecine what they prescribe ....

OK but what about bread and butter of dear Advocates? I heard recently that in Supreme Court the socalled top notch lawyers charges lacs of rupees for one appearance.

yes anil sir - it is true.

once i adviced by a sc lawyer not to go to ram jethmalani's office, as i was interested to know that what will be the fees if my case taken by him. that adv said- it is in lakhs.

but it is not the question of mr madhu.

his basic question is not about the -  high fees taken by advocates.

his basic question is - whether, there is any need of appointing an advocate at all, - for  getting just?

my ans repeating again - no need. cpc/ crpc already allowed it.

then where lies the question?

Lnd. Mr. K P Bodaji , it will be the duty of experts panel, to know the procedure or proceeding of justice they will deliver. For common man his duty will be over by bringing his complaint before the expert panel.

Here I feel appropriate to paste the observation in a judgment of Hon. Delhi HC by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog which is appealing for me.

“Whatsoever and howsoever may be the theories of law, the common man understands law by instinct. His instinct guides him that whatever is rational and fair is lawful and anything which is irrational or oppressive is unlawful. But, more often than not, law is discovered in a court room through forensic battles fought at length by legal luminaries. On many an occasion, after hearing arguments, a Judge goes into legal transcendental meditations to unfathom the niceties of the law.”

This observation says everything.

Growing litigation is a delight for Advocates, but it is a despair for judges/courts, govt, people etc. which is also not good in the interest of Nation.

An advocate can make mountain out of mole. In the name of “at the end of justice” and “substantial question of law is involved” they pull the cases.

Ashutosh ji

I slightly dis agree with u

A estimate is nearly 30 % case are government sponsered or government decision

is being chalenged.

For deciding authorities they are employees and being reimbursed for that

Now left out is poor advocate who has to survive

if we see clients they expect fast decision like in jehangir time but will  forget they are in 21 st century

and many laws and systems developed after careful scrutiny and study .

In the process advocates had to study not only laws but also has to face a client who is reluctant to shed bear minimum

So for this the solution can be different act and codes permit to  to represent ur self

or to be good samiratarian not to enter in litigations or into courthalls also

Ashutosh ji

I slightly dis agree with u

A estimate is nearly 30 % case are government sponsered or government decision

is being chalenged.

For deciding authorities they are employees and being reimbursed for that

Now left out is poor advocate who has to survive

if we see clients they expect fast decision like in jehangir time but will  forget they are in 21 st century

and many laws and systems developed after careful scrutiny and study .

In the process advocates had to study not only laws but also has to face a client who is reluctant to shed bear minimum

So for this the solution can be different act and codes permit to  to represent ur self

or to be good samiratarian not to enter in litigations or into courthalls also

Ashutosh ji

I slightly dis agree with u

A estimate is nearly 30 % case are government sponsered or government decision

is being chalenged.

For deciding authorities they are employees and being reimbursed for that

Now left out is poor advocate who has to survive

if we see clients they expect fast decision like in jehangir time but will  forget they are in 21 st century

and many laws and systems developed after careful scrutiny and study .

In the process advocates had to study not only laws but also has to face a client who is reluctant to shed bear minimum

So for this the solution can be different act and codes permit to  to represent ur self

or to be good samiratarian not to enter in litigations or into courthalls also

Ashutosh ji

I slightly dis agree with u

A estimate is nearly 30 % case are government sponsered or government decision

is being chalenged.

For deciding authorities they are employees and being reimbursed for that

Now left out is poor advocate who has to survive with a  intrlrigent  client .

if we see clients they expect fast decision like in jehangir time but will  forget they are in 21 st century

and many laws and systems developed after careful scrutiny and study .

In the process advocates had to study not only laws but also has to face a client who is reluctant to shed bear minimum

So for this the solution can be different act and codes permit to  to represent ur self

or to be good samiratarian not to enter in litigations or into courthalls also

GHODA AGAR GHAAS SE DOSTI KAREGA TO KHAAYEGA KYA ? This feeling of being 'Ghoda' and 'Ghaas' between the lawyer and client needs to be remove which is outcome of mistrust and feeling insecured. Some machanism needs to be evolwed in this behalf. Only these two  parties can do something to remove this kind of relationship.

Sirji,

I am in full agreement with Shri. Gurunarayana Rao, Advocate Chennai expressed his

views to Mr. Madhu.  Mr. Guru, please keep it up to the top.

T.R. Ganesan,

Advocate

The discussion arose why do we need the Ghoda? Since when did he become part of our society? With the advent of Britishers?