Advocates should not be Apologetic About Virtual Court Hearings

   Virtual hearings in the courts are no less than a boon for the advocates and litigants and the need is to make them more user-friendly and flawless. But as they say, old habits die hard, and therefore some of the advocates still find it difficult to adopt them. It is very strange that some of the advocates become apologetic while appearing before the courts. They apologise to courts for not having appeared physically-this attitude of theirs is hard to explain. This speaks of their unscientific temper and anti-technology bent of mind at a time when Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going to make big headway in court functioning. Later or sooner, AI is bound to play a very important role in judicial work throughout the world. It will revolutionise the system as it will go a long way in eliminating the banes of corruption and delay in the judiciary.

  As a matter of fact, the concept of virtual courts is aimed at considerably reducing the presence of litigants and lawyers in the courtrooms. This method is a great saving of time and money for all stakeholders. In this age of heavy traffic, it takes a lot of time in commuting from the residence to the courts and vice versa. If one goes by car or taxi or any other mode of transport, it costs money and increases pollution. When going from home to court, the advocates or litigants invariably incur expenses on tea/coffee, snacks or meals.

  The biggest advantage for advocates is that they can handle many cases of different courts by working from their offices or home-cum-offices, which is highly difficult during physical hearings. Apart from it, the courtrooms normally get crowded, which can be avoided by adopting the virtual mode of hearings. However, there is not all hunky-dory in the virtual hearings. Sometimes electric and electronic machines create problems The other disadvantage that I feel is that it leaves the advocates isolated and they remain deprived of socialisation, which is very necessary for healthy mental equilibrium.

   But there is no denying that the advantages of virtual hearings far outweigh the physical hearings in the court. Therefore, the advocates should not feel shy about adopting the new method of virtual hearings. At the same time, the government and the courts should come forward to augment the facilities for virtual hearings. Some investments must also be done by the advocates for arranging better gadgets and internet facilities so that they do not have to face glitches during the virtual hearings.

 

 

Opponents of Gowri’s Elevation Forgot Justices VR Krishna Ayer, K S Hegde and Baharul Islam

The Supreme Court has done a great service to the country by dismissing the petition filed by some advocates with vested interests against the elevation of Advocate LC Victoria Gowri (now)the judge of the Madras High Court. They have been so overactive to stop her swearing-in that they first mentioned the case on Monday morning but when it was to be listed on Friday, they became jittery and again mentioned on Tuesday morning to stop her swearing, which was slated at 10.35 am on the same day. As is normally seen that in such matters a group rather than a gang of lawyers, journalist and so-called intellectuals take up the cudgel to ensure that a plan that goes against their interests are frustrated.
The lawyers of the Madras High Court who filed their petition in the Supreme Court against LC Victoria Gowri and those who were ready to lap it up have actually shown disrespect to the decision of the Supreme Court collegium, utter disregard to the constitution, which provides for the liberty of thought and freedom of speech and expression to every citizen and vehemence of their opposition to the government in power at the Centre and particularly to justice Victoria Gowri. Although it is not the occasion to critique her statements and views about Christians and Islamicists, there is hardly anything to disagree with her. In fact, her opinion about the proselyting Christians and Jehadi Muslims is very mild because the reality is more alarming than what she said.
Perhaps these busybody Johnnies are not aware of the fact that famous Justice Dinshaw D Davar before becoming the judge of the Bombay High Court was the Advocate of Tilak Maharaj, but nobody raised an objection that why was he being elevated to the judgeship. So much so, MA Jinnah was appointed By Bal Gangadhar Tilak himself to conduct his case as the defence lawyer in 1897 in the Bombay High Court. This is being stated here to prove the point that a person playing the role of advocate casts off his colour and political ideology when s/he becomes a judge. Therefore, the maligning campaign started against Ms Gowri speaks of the sick mentality of the advocates and their supporters.
Those who were up in arms against Victoria’s appointment only remembered that she subscribed to a political philosophy but conveniently forgot that an eminent judge like VR Krishna Ayer was not only sympathetic to a political party but was a minister in the communist government of Kerala before becoming a judge. Similarly, Justice K S Hegde before being a judge in the Supreme Court was a Member of Parliament. After relinquishing the judgeship, he again swung into politics and became the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Justice Baharul Islam was an MP before he was made the judge. There are examples galore of such judges who after demitting their offices became the MPs and even Ministers in many governments. Therefore, those who opposed the elevation of Justice Victoria Gowri can be called to be rabidly communal and anarchist otherwise they would not have behaved in such an imbecile manner as they did.

Same-sex Marriages and Their Acceptability in Society

  My Odia Advocate friend Shri Purshottam Misra has requested the Supreme Court Collegium to recommend the name of a gay advocate Saurabh Kripal for the appointment as the judge in the SC itself instead of recommending his (for want of any better pronoun I have to use) name for the appointment as the judge of the Delhi High Court. This will send a strong message across the world that Indian Supreme Court is a great respecter of human beings irrespective of their sexual orientations. It must be mentioned here that Saurabh is a self-proclaimed same-sex married person to a Swiss gay, where same-sex marriages are valid. The aims of marriage in our culture are Dharma (Duty), Santanotpatti (Procreation), and Rati (Pleasure). All are intertwined, but in same-sex marriages, only the pleasure is the summum bonum. Among the Hindus, marriage is regarded as a socio-cultural duty. Marriage is solemnised not so much for sex or progeny as for obtaining a partner for the fulfilment of one’s religious duties.

The votaries and the supporters of same-sex marriage (gay and lesbian marriages) say that what is more important than Santontpatti and Rati is economic security, exclusive rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities. Marriage is a stabilising source in society. It is very difficult for those believing in men-women traditional marriages to even think of any stability in same-sex marriages. For traditional marriages, same-sex marriages are anathema, which are perversions of the minds of two adults.

Same-sex marriages may be legalised by the Parliament and Judiciary but there is hardly any doubt that society is still not ready to make it a legit marriage. Marriage put the burden on men and women with responsibilities to the family and society which are totally new and unexpected in same-sex marriage. It is alright to lead a same-sex marital life but after a certain age, both will have the tinge and desire for the family, for which they have to recourse of adoption because they can never be biological father or mother of the child unless, of course, some scientific miracles happen. There is a difference between sex and carnality and that has been the reason that carnality has been made a criminal offence in India, which has now been decriminalised by the court.

Although some same-sex marriages have been regularised in some countries still they are vehemently opposed by religious and moral groups. All religions- Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus - disallow such marriages. Whatever one may say but there are no doubts that same-sex marriages are against nature and therefore they must be discouraged and deprecated. It is very difficult to imagine the mindset of those, who have entered into same-sex marriages. Lampooning, ridiculing and criticising apart, the momentum for same-sex marriage has been gaining ground at breakneck speed. The day is not far away when the supporters of heterosexual marriages will become the butt of jokes as opposed to gay and lesbian marriages.

If self-proclaimed gays and lesbians adorn the seats in the constitutional courts, nobody knows how much havoc they will cause in society. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of the occasion, that same-sex marriages should not be legitimised. Emotions and so-called progressiveness should not dim nature’s brilliance for heterosexual marriages that have stood the test for millions of years.

Petitions have been filed in many High Courts like; Delhi, Kerala, and Gujrat to bring same-sex marriages under the special marriage act. Now the Supreme Court has decided to transfer all petitions to itself and hear them to give finality. The court has appointed two advocates as nodal counsel. One of them Arundhati Katju claims to be a lesbian and is married to a senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who is also one of the arguing counsel for the petitioners. Their contention is that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage is discriminatory. These petitions are a sequel to the judgment in the Navtej Jauhar case, which decriminalised homosexuality.

The main demand of the petitioners is to make the Special Marriage Act gender-neutral and such marriages should get the same protection as are available to inter-caste and interfaith marriages. Let the people wait with bated breath whether the Supreme Court will issue a mandamus to the government to expand the ambit of the Special Marriage Act or would prefer to make a law under article 142 of the Constitution of India. Once it is legitimised then those who have been ridiculing and looking down on same-sex affairs will be silenced for always, regardless of its immorality and social disapproval.

Like

Comment

Share

Double Speak, Deception and Ditching are traits of Pseudo Socialists

Strange are the ways of the governments! It is very difficult to understand why, at all, the Padma Vibhushan was announced for the late Mulayam Singh Yadav. There is hardly any contribution, which can be attributed to him to the country. He held many important offices but to the best of our understanding, he has never been known for any innovation or development in the country, cohesion or harmony in the society. It does not mean that awardees in the past were all worthies and deserving. There have been many Padma Awardees in the past, who have been abominably undeserving. However, if it is conferred on some politicians, people dissect them with a microscopic lens.
The only qualification that went in favour of Shri Yadav was that he was a pseudo-Samajwadi. He lived and behaved like a feudal lord. In fact, the general impression about Samajwadis is that they are double-faced. Deception and ditching are inherent to their nature. They will say one thing and do another, which will mostly be contrary to each other. There is no dearth of Samajwadis who will talk about dedication and simplicity but in real life, they are most possessive and ostentatious.
There is one old journalist in UP, who has been very close to Mulayam Singh Yadav, who would swear by socialism but would adopt all nasty and nefarious tactics to collect money. To grab the membership of some committees and commissions, he would pose to be a trade unionist but would not show even a trace of any work or struggle for the cause of the working class. The wonder of all wonders is this trade unionist will not work to save the job of any fellow worker but would assiduously play all dirty games to throw his colleague out of his job.
So much so, he would make all-out efforts and gimmicks to see that another worker becomes jobless. It is because of these traits; he has now become the most hated person, and everybody wants him to keep him at arm’s length. When he turns hostile to anybody, he stoops very low to adopt the most devious methods to harm him. It is a different matter that this imbecile is absolutely incapable of harming anybody because all his schemes and designs boomerang on him. Shockingly, his soul never pricks him even at this old age for what he does.
In the same way, Mulayam Singh Yadav had no qualms of conscience or regrets for what he had done against Karsevaks at Ayodhya or for that matter the protestors at Rampur or other places waging the struggle for Uttarakhand. But why the BJP government incentivise this double-faced, double speak socialist is hard to understand.

Judicial Functioning Needs Complete Overhauling

                                          

      I would like to recall two recent instances in the Supreme Court of India. Both are, of course, casual, and off the cuff, yet as Fali Nariman says that even obiter dicta remarks made by the judges during the hearing of the cases convey some message, although they do not have any bearings on the case. The first was made by Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar, who was a Presiding Judge in Court Room Number 5. An elderly advocate did not address the bench as ‘My Lord’, which has become the habit, but rather the nature of most of the advocates, particularly Senior Advocates when saying or submitting anything to the court. So much so, even if an adverse order is passed most of the advocates bow their heads and say, ‘obliged my lord’. In fact, this is an inexplicable expression when there was nothing to be ‘obliged’.In fact, it is the height of the sycophancy that lawyers have inherited from British courts. It is the time when the Indian judiciary with the help of Artificial Intelligence must adopt such ways and means of conducting the courts which should not be intimidating as it is in the present scenario.

      Most of the Advocates use the ‘my lords’ without conjuring any meaning for the same. So, when an order was passed against the submissions of an elderly advocate,.he simply said ‘it’s okay’ but this was like a red flag to Justice Khanwilkar and he started fulminating and sermonising to the advocate that 'you seem to be quite senior but it looks like you have not gained experience about court craft commensurating with your seniority'. The elderly advocate was aghast and flabbergasted at this sudden outburst and lecturing by Justice Khanwilkar. A judge is known by his sagacious and well-reasoned orders or verdicts and by his fragile ego.

     The expression of the words like My Lord(s) is the reflection of the servile mentality of the advocates. This was normally used in England where the judges were considered to be the representatives of the King but In India judiciary is one of the three pillars of governance. It must command respect and not sycophancy from anybody, much less from the lawyers. But this expression-my lords-has gained acceptance, that too, after Independence defies all logic. And a judge if instead of showing erudition, brilliance and congeniality depict his irascibility in the courtrooms, then it cannot be appreciated or applauded. Therefore, the way Justice Khanwilkar reacted towards the Advocate was unbecoming of him, although he has been known for gentlemanliness. These days most of the courts conduct their business in a hybrid mode i.e., hearings of the cases are allowed in both physical as well as virtual modes. In some of the courts live streaming is also permitted, which is a welcome move by all means.

    In fact, the Bar Council of India must take strict steps to ensure that the use of My Lord(s) is stopped immediately. Those who are found violating the Bar Council rules should be penalised firstly, by paying fines, and thereafter ‘warnings’ but if it is not mended even after two warnings then the license to practice may be snatched for a month or two. Otherwise, this fawning would continue to flourish because the new breed of lawyers would continue to follow their seniors who literally bend over backwards to please the judges with all humiliations and insults.

   The second incident is a very recent one of 4^th January 2023, when two advocates started eulogising the late Ashoke Sen and the late LM Singhvi. They started narrating their own experiences about those two eminent lawyers who could argue their cases for hours together without even properly going through the ‘briefs or files’. One Advocate boasted that he used to brief Mr Sen in the lobby of the court and yet he has seen him on his legs for many hours. Not to be outdone, another lawyer said that he used to brief Dr LM Singhvi at the breakfast table for a few minutes, yet he has seen him arguing at stretch in the courtrooms for many hours. They were renowned lawyers which were why they must have been getting hefty fees from their clients. Justice Ajay Rastogi echoed the views of both advocates and he said that he has also seen Ashok Sen holding forth in the Supreme Court for many hours without much preparation and judges used to listen to him with rapt attention. He possessed the charisma of court craft, particularly on constitutional issues. So far so good, but nobody narrated how those very eminent lawyers had been handling the non-constitutional matters, where an advocate has to be well prepared with facts.

   Thanks to another judge of the Bench Justice Ms Bela M Trivedi, who put things in the right perspective by intervening in jest that it could happen only in the Supreme, not in other courts. Some of the Advocates with accented English compel the judges to tolerate them otherwise, there is no justification to ask the advocates to carry on their unending arguments. She said that many times a mountain of irrelevant arguments does not have any relevance. If an Advocate conducts his/her case without reading the files and understanding the briefs without weighing and understanding the points on the legal scale, the advocate is certainly doing an injustice to the client (s). She was right in saying that this could be possible only in the Supreme Court and not in any other court.

Fakery of NDTV Owners Stands Exposed

No Tears Should be Shed for Wily Wolves of NDTV

One often wonders that why there is so much brouhaha by a section of pseudo-intellectuals over the sale of NDTV by a crafty capitalist duo, claiming to be the espousers of public interest to a proclaimed industrialist. This duo made a huge amount of money by adopting all the tricks of the trade, which could be unbecoming of any ethical and intellectual person. But by their intellectual posturing both accumulated stinking amounts of wealth. They are said to have assets worth thousands of crores, that too, within a span of two/ three decades. It is said they were living in a Barsati of a house but in a very little time, they made hundreds of crores, mostly because of their connections with powers that be. They are, thus, classic examples of crony capitalism.

There was an Income Tax Officer, some Srivastav, who used to publicly say that husband and wife duo- Pranoy Roy and Radhika Roy owned a ramp consisting of hundreds of acres of land in an African country. So, NDTV was like any other business for them and there is nothing wrong with it. But they played the victim card to get the milage of sympathies from the gullible public was indeed condemnable. After all owners of big media houses, be it Print or Electronic do their business, not for any social service but to make profits. In fact, it has been seen that media owners indulge in far more unethical practices than businesspersons of other varieties. Therefore, those shedding tears for the Roy couple are thoroughly mistaken about their so-called altruistic deeds.

There is no dearth of such people who are shedding tears over the drama of the resignation of a journalist, who has been associated with the Channel for a long time and is known for spearheading a campaign against a certain political party and a leader. These people possibly do not know the fact that power consists of the ‘ruling party as well as who is in opposition. Hence, those who are in opposition also fall within the realm of the ‘Power’. Therefore, this journalist, who was part of the NDTV was also part of the power structure.

Here it is a larger question arises whether this journalist and the NDTV owner’s duo were in any way different from other exploiting capitalists. In fact, when a person claiming to be against exploitation becomes an integral part of the exploitative machinery then his/ her exploitation becomes more intense and tortuous than other capitalists. Only a few years ago nearly 350 employees of the NDTV were very unceremoniously thrown out of their jobs but the entire class of progressive journalists and intellectuals kept mum as if they were hamstrung by paralysis. When we approached the Labour Commissioner of Delhi to help those hapless workers, he said that victimised employees must themselves approach the Labour department. We talked to many employees, but they did not come forward to complain about it for fear of being branded as the embedded agents of the government.

What was most astonishing was that a few days after the termination of workers the owners of NDTV organised a meeting in the Press Club of India, which was addressed by a whole lot of anti-workers ranging from reactionaries like Arun Shourie, and Fali Nariman to many shameless and rank opportunists, who did not say even a word against the unfair labour practices of the NDTV owners. The stony silence of this sermonising and preachy journalist (his name need not be mentioned here) over the termination of hundreds of workers was painful to the core.

I am sure that workers will now have more freedom in the NDTV to raise their voices against exploitation than they had in the regime of Roys, who were marauders masquerading as being pro-people businesspersons. They must be exposed, who have been worse than the enemies of the workers.