Restore its nobility

IT IS with acute anguish that I write this article, because I felt like hearing a disembodied voice telling me that all is not well with the legal profession. That sounded to be the voice of the Mahatma.

Compiling and editing The Law and the Lawyers by Mahatma Gandhi, Sunit B. Kher, in his introduction to the book, said: ``The vocation requiring the highest standards of rectitude, integrity and uprightness, and its practice is in no way inconsistent with the pursuit of truth''. This Kher said on October 2, 1962 (Gandhi Jayanthi Day). Gandhiji practised as a lawyer for over 20 years. It was at that time, says Kher, he acquired a true knowledge of legal practice and learnt the things that a junior barrister learns in a senior barrister's chamber and also gained confidence that he would not after all fail as a lawyer. "The Mahatma," continued Sunit B. Kher, "maintained the highest traditions of the profession and did not swerve by a hair's breadth from the path of rectitude and integrity... He never sold the truth to serve the interests of his clients ... He never forgot that he had a prior and perpetual retainer on behalf of truth and justice."

The Mahatma had said: ``In my heart of hearts I always wished that I should win only if my client's case was right''. It is said that during his professional work it was Gandhiji's habit never to conceal his ignorance from his clients or his colleagues; and wherever he felt himself at sea, he would advise his client to consult some other counsel, or to let him seek the assistance of a senior counsel. Gandhiji proved that the indictment against the legal profession by Swift in Gulliver's Travels was wrong. Sunit B. Kher may again be quoted: ``At a time when the legal and professional standards among both judges and lawyers have fallen woefully, it behoves the legal fraternity to bestir itself and infuse a moral tone into the profession by pledging itself with renewed vigour and deep devotion to the ideals and the precepts of Gandhiji and presenting him to the profession as a model truly worthy of the closest emulation''. The standards have woefully worsened now, and there is nobody to emulate Gandhiji.

Under siege from novices

The legal profession is now enjoying the `silly' season. Everybody concerned with the system seems to hide behind his small achievement. I cannot but point out that the profession is now under siege from novices. Every lawyer, at the entry into the profession itself, hopes to win a bundle. This sends out a perilous signal that the profession is not on the right path. The one who knows too little cares not for the one who knows much more.

Judicial calmness is conspicuously absent. Arguments/submissions are scaled down, forgetting that the judge does not carry all the aces, though; and that by having been appointed judge, he has not come a full circle. A struggle to save the profession's soul is imperative. Touting has started to haemorrhage the profession. There seems to be no continuity with the past. Nobody thinks of this day that age. For the better or the worse, the profession is depending upon information technology, not on intelligent initiative. For an advocate, reading and arguing are not alternatives. Sadly, there is no cause for total comfort. Don't you think I am a prophet of gloom or doom. I am here with a roster of the profession's woes and miseries. Both the Bench and the Bar should try in tandem to save the judicature by guarding the Achilles' heel. In this profession, there should never be an attempt to separate the men from the boys as is done in sports, for the presence of seniors is a strong force.

Shareholders of judicature

Advocates are shareholders of the judicature. Therefore it is eminently reasonable that the Bench and the Bar should try to overcome the cumulative professional embarrassment. Lawyers should have a fixed-deposit in the profession. They should not fritter away a `blank cheque' and return with a huge `overdraft'.

It is important for today's judges to know the history of the judiciary, as they are part of the history, not bigger than that. Respect is an aspect which is reciprocal. It cannot be commanded by the gate through which you enter, or the gait with which you stride. The Bar's affection is precious judicial asset for a judge. There are today judges who are no older than the children or grandchildren of some experienced senior lawyers. A judge is only the second incarnation of a lawyer with a conferred constitutional status for a limited period, which brings honour, not immunity. Judges and lawyers should remain an undivided family, as judges are selected from the Bar stables. Nobody is invariably infallible. ``The Supreme Court is final not because it is infallible, but it is infallible because it is final'', said great jurist Mr. V. R. Krishna Iyer. The High Court is neither final nor infallible. It is good for both the Bar and the Bench to remember this; and both should avoid personalised functioning.

T.P. KELU NAMBIAR

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : The secular and the sacred
Next     : Media under microscope