Of Fair Trial and Conscience
There has been an outcry on the blogosphere recently about the issue of "Fair Trial" for Kasab, etc and how it was wrong of the Shiv Sena to threaten lawyers against taking up Kasab's case in court. (I am against that too, but the point I want to make is a little different and will come up shortly). On the other hand, a lot of arguments are floating around saying that lawyers shouldn't take up his case because he is a terrorist and has mocked the constitution and therefore no constitutional protection should be afforded to him. A reasonably fair sentiment but obviously wrong on technical counts.
People have dug up Ramjethmalani's interview with IBNLive where he shouts down the poor interviewer who is asking him if he is "defending the indefensible". Rightly so. His argument is that it is not for the press or the media to decide who is or is not "indefensible". It is for the courts to decide. He goes on to add that it would be a sad day for our country when a lawyer refuses to represent someone just because of public opinion. Fair enough. And so far I am with him. But here's the question I would ask (and sadly the interviewer never got around to asking; and since Mr Jethmalani is an able lawyer, he does not even attempt to answer it). Mr Jethmalani cites the Code of Conduct laid down by the Bar Council which (apparently) states that no lawyer must refuse to take up a case because of public opinion (It is another matter that there is no way to assess why a lawyer refused to take up a case). However, does the Code of Conduct not state that a lawyer should not take up a case unless he is convinced about the matter himself. The media or the press may not have the right to decide whether someone is guilty or not. However, a lawyer has to atleast be convinced one way or the other. His opinion may change as the trial progresses. However, when he takes up the case, should he not be reasonably convinced of his case? Unless he is, can he even assure his client a "fair trial"? So the question that should have been asked is this - "Mr. Jethmalani, are you reasonably convinced that Mr Manu Sharma is innocent."
In the current scenario, the question to be asked of any lawyer taking up Kasab's case is - are you convinced of Kasab's innocence?
People have dug up Ramjethmalani's interview with IBNLive where he shouts down the poor interviewer who is asking him if he is "defending the indefensible". Rightly so. His argument is that it is not for the press or the media to decide who is or is not "indefensible". It is for the courts to decide. He goes on to add that it would be a sad day for our country when a lawyer refuses to represent someone just because of public opinion. Fair enough. And so far I am with him. But here's the question I would ask (and sadly the interviewer never got around to asking; and since Mr Jethmalani is an able lawyer, he does not even attempt to answer it). Mr Jethmalani cites the Code of Conduct laid down by the Bar Council which (apparently) states that no lawyer must refuse to take up a case because of public opinion (It is another matter that there is no way to assess why a lawyer refused to take up a case). However, does the Code of Conduct not state that a lawyer should not take up a case unless he is convinced about the matter himself. The media or the press may not have the right to decide whether someone is guilty or not. However, a lawyer has to atleast be convinced one way or the other. His opinion may change as the trial progresses. However, when he takes up the case, should he not be reasonably convinced of his case? Unless he is, can he even assure his client a "fair trial"? So the question that should have been asked is this - "Mr. Jethmalani, are you reasonably convinced that Mr Manu Sharma is innocent."
In the current scenario, the question to be asked of any lawyer taking up Kasab's case is - are you convinced of Kasab's innocence?
posted by Parijat at
8:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home