Thursday, February 7, 2013

The Defence Never Rests



There are some in our media who are better off if they don’t open their mouths about legal issues. Not because they shouldn’t speak but because they try to influence and mislead public opinion through utterances that primarily stem from ignorance of the law and legal practice. This is especially so when they are peddling half-truths. To call them “Legal-Bimbos” wouldn’t be unfair. Take a look at these tweets:
















In the first, the legal luminary from CNN-IBN, Pallavi Ghosh, equates Arun Jaitley’s defence of PJ Kurien to the case of Sushil Shinde. The context being, BJP announced they will boycott Shinde because of his “Hindu terror” comments and the SC reopening an old rape case from Kerala in which the current RS Deputy Chairman was an accused. Arun Jaitley had then defended Kurien in the case. The other legal expert, Sunetra Chaudhary from NDTV, even suggests Jaitley is still defending Kurien in the SC. Barkha Dutt points out to Sunetra that Jaitley had given up legal practice after becoming the LOP in the RS. Jaitley had mentioned this to her or someone else when he was interviewed by NDTV in an issue relating to Nitin Gadkari. And though Barkha rightly points out a fact, she is not pointing out the right fact. The right fact is that Arun Jaitley, if he hadn’t surrendered his license, would still be entitled to and justified in defending Kurien. Merely because Arun Jaitley defended Kurien or any person from some other political party is not reason enough to cast aspersions on his character.

The moronic answer that Sunetra provides is that she wondered if Tweeple knew. Well, if she hasn’t yet learnt that Tweeple are not bimbos like her, then she’s worse than I actually thought. Sure, there may be some stray legal-bimbos on Twitter too. Maybe those are the ones who follow Sunetra and she is trying to educate them. Such idiots maintain that Jaitley shouldn’t defend “alleged” rapists as a lawyer in courts. So much for expertise!

In the recent Delhi Gangrape incident there was a shocking announcement from the Lawyers Association at Saket in Delhi. The association’s head appealed to lawyers not to defend the accused. Individual choices are fine but asking all lawyers not to defend some accused is comically outrageous. This head lawyer is worthy of having his license stripped. This action reflects lack of respect for the law under which the govt and our judiciary system are obligated to provide defence for an accused. It mocks democracy itself. If the govt and lawyers fail in this obligation they are failing our justice system and causing serious damage to legal processes.

Not so long ago, the lawyers initially engaged for the Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab were assaulted and beaten up. These goons and those who cheered them deserve to be condemned and punished. How does all this stupidity start? Exactly the way Pallavi and Sunetra start it! The idiotic anchors and media reporters believe the media is so powerful that once they pronounce someone guilty then there is no need for a court to try a case. They believe associating lawyers with a criminally-accused makes them equally guilty of the crime. Such morons abound in resplendent glory on Twitter as well. The public then turns against the lawyers as if they were evil and sometimes thrashes them. Let’s go back a few years and you can watch moronery of the most extreme kind from none other than a legal-bimbo who shouldn’t be talking law at all. Yeah, who else but Sagarika Ghose? This is how she questioned Ram Jethmalani in 2006 in the Manu Sharma case (Appeal in SC for killing Jessica Lal). You can watch it on Youtube but here are her opening questions which are shocking:

Sagarika Ghose: In defending Manu Sharma, are you in some sense defending or attempting to defend the indefensible?... But sir, aren’t you worried that you are going against the tide of public opinion?... But the Press is only reflecting public opinion... Here is someone who in the eyes of the public is seen as someone who has committed a heinous crime.

So you see, according to the media, cases should be decided based on “public opinion” that they generate and the media and public in general have the right to declare someone “indefensible”. These are seriously dangerous messages that our media is putting out. RamJ rightly spanked Sagarika for her stupidity in that interview. RamJ has a record of defending the most notorious criminals from Billa-Ranga to Indira Gandhi’s killers and he is now hired to defend Rajiv Gandhi’s killers in TN to commute the death sentence. He is doing his job. It’s the media morons who are failing in theirs. By the stupid logic of media, should the doctors who treated Kasab’s injuries have refused to do so? Should doctors let the accused die because of media or public opinion? This is the reason the legal fraternity has great respect for RamJ while the media sees him as evil. All such questions come from media-comedians who even describe High Court judgements as ‘Panchayati judgements’. And her channel entrusts her with moderating discussions about rape laws or marital-rape laws. That’s the absurdity at CNN-IBN. Would you leave legal counselling to comedians?

The defense never rests’ is the title of a famous book by eminent American Criminal-Trial lawyer F. Lee Bailey (do read comments on the page I’ve linked). He has been involved in some of the most notorious cases and even in the OJ Simpson trial which has been called “Trial of the century”. In his book he describes how public thinks lawyers defending notorious accused are mavericks and face the wrath of public and media. That brings us to an important question. Do defence lawyers naturally believe their clients are “innocent”? Absolutely not! It’s the LAW that believes they are innocent till proven guilty. WE made that law! So what exactly do defence lawyers do in such cases? They do a lot more than just defend someone; they complement and validate our judiciary system. The courts are people’s courts. Remember, if an accused is not defended properly the court can very well declare it a mistrial and miscarriage of justice and even free the accused. Is that what our media’s legal-bimbos want? Ask them! Do they want rapists and murderers to go scot-free because no lawyer was willing or allowed to defend them? That is what a court may choose to do if no defence is afforded to the accused. 

In the US, Miranda Rights are Rights which are read to a person immediately on arrest or before interrogation. It’s commonly called Miranda rights since the guy (Ernesto Miranda) who was arrested was released by the court because the law officers did not read him his legal rights. The standard Rights, with variants, to be read to a person about to be arrested in the US is: “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. If you cannot afford a lawyer, the state will provide you one”. If that legal right is not read to an arrestee then the court is likely to dismiss the case and seek a retrial. The US also has the Fifth Amendment which provides the Right for an accused to remain silent. The accused is not liable to prove he is guilty nor is his defence lawyer. It’s the job of the prosecution to prove him guilty. Not the defence lawyer, not the media and not public opinion. Public opinion matters in the ballot box not in a court of law. Public opinion issues and concerns can be raised through a PIL but they cannot be used by media to pronounce legal verdicts on anyone. The 2-minute-orgasm polls in the media cannot declare anyone guilty or indefensible.

Defence lawyers are not always fighting to prove clients “innocent”. Certainly not! In the case of David Headley the evidence was so damning that his defence plea-bargained. That’s what defence lawyers do. The defence also ensures that proper charges are framed and a proper trial is conducted. It is important that an accused is tried under proper clauses, charges, crimes and procedures. The defence lawyer ensures that. The defence lawyer also ensures that prosecution does not tar an accused with unrelated crimes or crimes the person has never committed. The defence lawyer’s job is to ensure no pressure or public opinion is brought to bear on the court proceedings. The defence lawyer ensures the Judge has no personal stake in the proceedings and asks for a different judge should he prove that. Defence lawyers ensure punishment is not disproportionate to the crime. Therefore, the media is doing a great disservice to the justice system, to you and to society at large when they question defence lawyers and paint them as “criminals” by association. The media’s Powder-Puff girls and morons who agree with their logic might want to learn some law before they make stupid pronouncements to mislead people.

If lawyers, as an association or group, decide to boycott an accused claiming he or she is a villain or guilty in the eyes of media or public opinion then these lawyers are guilty of failing to uphold the law and the Constitution they swore to protect. And those who verbally trash or physically thrash such defence lawyers are equally guilty of uncivilised behaviour and are misundersanders of democracy and justice. The prosecution acts for the people. That’s why they call such prosecution “State V xyz or People V xyz or Union V xyz’. Under criminal law, the crime is not just against an individual or group, it's a crime against the State. It’s also WE, as people, who have ordered, authorised and legislated that an accused must be allowed full defence. We pay the salary of the courts to make sure such defence is mandatory. Anyone in the media trashing legal defence of an accused is indirectly trashing the people.

The so called warriors of justice in the media overlook the fact that while they condemn many accused as guilty and ridicule defence lawyers as being equivalent to criminals they are the ones who celebrate the convicted criminals. They seem to have divine powers to pronounce anyone guilty but will promote and celebrate “convicted criminals” like Salman Khan and Sanjay Dutt. Why? Because these guys mean money and Mota-maal for them! Our media doesn’t give a damn about justice or respect for law. Make no mistake about that. It’s the job of the prosecution to prove and establish beyond any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty and rest the case. The defence goes right up to the highest authority to seek justice or pardon (like Supreme Courts and Presidents). The defence never rests! It’s not supposed to.
  

73 comments:

  1. Well said Ravi, about these h$$$ers and boilers. They have gone past their useby date, now has to do anything, however stupid act talk it may be, to remain relevant.

    The Gir Lion has just walked, all jackals are shivering. Headline Today was more interested in talking about protest and lathicharged at Delhi, where NaMo spoke. That shows the bankruptcy of our MSM. All whores, paid from top to toe, with bank notes.

    Any True Indian should be ready now for next Mahabharata, sooner than later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ravi, extremely well put. If you take to writing books like Arun Shourie, am sure they will sell more than a million. Just compare rediff news on 'students protest Modi's speech at SRC' to Dailymail UK's report 'students welcome Modi's speech at SRC.' I now-a-days read Dailymail UK in preference to others for news on India. Dailymail reported how Indian government (defence, state governments, RBI etc) was showering Rs 25 crore for the Sanskriti school for IAS and politicians' children. No such mention was seen in local news. Swadeshi channels are deliberately inferior?

      Delete
    2. Inferior ? No dude , as with any other systems in India , unwarranted political influence have undermined their credibility and efficiency. Channels are now hatchet job organizers for politicians.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have absolutely no words to describe my feelings. Since the time I watched R.Jethmalani's interview with Sagarika I felt that there should be someone who can thrash that lady .But these ladies just did'nt stop there and keep peddling these lies in the media which fools so many innocent people to believe thier non-sense. I salute you for pouring my heart out here in this blog post. You are doing a great service for the nation. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent logic that doctors too can not treat an accused who has been convicted by TV channels. We all know if the accused,Mr.Kurien, had not been a senior congressman, Mr.Jaitley would have been branded as 'anti-women' and 'pro-rapists'. We could imagine -'the country wants to know' kind of TV discussions with Suhel Seth,Ranjana Kumari,Javed Akhtar,Mahesh Bhatt,Shabana Azmi etc. giving their 'secular' opinion on Jaitley's role, but the bad luck for these channels is if they try to do so, the congress will get even worse publicity.

    ReplyDelete
  5. haha 'media comedians' and 'panchayati judgement' i love that!

    ReplyDelete
  6. actually, it's just goes on to show their professional ethics. Since, these bimbos like any other aunt-suffering-mid-life-crisis, casually and shamelessly MIX their personal emotions (against someone or some organization) with their profession, they cannot understand how jaitley as a professional lawyer defend someone who belongs to rival camp and didn't let his emotions/hatred against his rival determine his professional decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nicely structured piece. Educative. Hope those powder-puff girls read this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nicely structured piece. Educative. Hope those powder-puff girls read this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not long ago Sunetra had a tiff with IIM alumni [James Priya] on twitter, and she slyly commented if IIM teaches students to use words like 'Lulz' and I commented that Sunetra couldnt get into IIM as she failed the CAT examination which has a mix of IQ test questions too. So you could safely conclude that even a Tea delivery boy [no harm intended to the profession here] has a much better IQ than these Journos. The only thing that they have is a compensatory sauve english [to get over the low IQ] that they have picked up in some university where they got in on somebody's recommendation of a connection at right place. Genuine Honesty in their profession could be the right compensatory attribute for the low IQ, but that's oxymoron and really too much to ask for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of the job interviews in private sector focuses on external personality and English communication.
      Less importance is given to knowledge depth, IQ, EQ, human nature, reading habits.



      Delete
    2. A chaiwaala is going to become PM of India then a tea delivery boy working under chaiwaala would definitely have better IQ than any bimbos and hammam boys of media.And I'm proud of that chaiwaala and wish and hope India produces such chaiwaalas.

      Delete
    3. Dear nvltec.....you said it. These MSM morons have only English speaking ability. Otherwise they are excellent fools/idiots. They are having too much of power in their hand which they don't deserve. Even Britisher's were much decent people than these desi angreez.

      One news item in Times of India at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Parents-want-attendants-on-bus-must-know-English/articleshow/18325472.cms . These English speaking morons want to steal a job of a 4th class Bus attendant speaking on the basis of English.

      I have heard Chetan Bhagat, Narian Murthy saying English speaking person can draw 6 times more salary than Indian Language speaking person. And these very same people are talking about inclusive growth and equality.

      If we wanted to be so much dependent on English why did we went for freedom struggle and movement with British Raz? They were much more civilized than these Desi Angrez. We would have learned English from them only.

      I declare here that I do not have anything against English language as such, in fact I love it very much because of their fanatic quest for knowledge, but I strongly dislike the attitude of these Indian Angrez Sahib. They are the worst exploiters of other fellow Indians on the basis of language.

      Delete
    4. I strongly support your comment.

      Delete
    5. Please dont forget that there is an audience for such English channels and thats why they thrive.

      Delete
  10. Very well written and informative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well written. And also article is very informative.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bimbo's should know that AJ has appeared for Amar Singh also and when Kapil zero Sibal became a minister he transferred lot of his cases to AJ.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Another very well written piece Ravi!

    In his interview, RamJ mentions that under bar council 'rules' a lawyer cannot refuse a client from defending. I think that point too could have been mentioned.

    Hope these legal-bimbos read this article and learn a thing or two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Learn ? Pls dont over-estimate them.

      Delete
  14. I have this feeling that whenever similar conflict (like Lawyers Association at Saket in Delhi) will repeat in the future, people are going to quote this article.
    After number of clicks, citation is logically next step.
    Good luck :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. This article is an eye opener! After reading several years from biased MSM and which changes every normal person's perception from the reality, this blog has been a refresher... Its a very good analysis of Indian Legal system!

    Thanks a lot

    ReplyDelete
  16. A highly informative post. A must know for everyone who looks up at a defense lawyer as co-accused. In a way defense lawyers ensure right punishment for the crime was news to me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Excellent once again! But what caught my eyes is one of the so called Media Watcher seeking out to a celebrity (stupidly as always and in this Screen shot taking it to moronic heights) wanting to ask why Jaitley defended a rapist. Ahemm...his purpose is served. Framed by yet another celebrity (Mediacrooks, LOL!) ?This #Loser seem to be game for anything to get a reply from a celebrity. This piece also effected an inadvertent expose of that Media Watcher (or was it?)
    And wannabe lawyers and pretenders - can learn from this piece. Lawyers job is to ensure due legal processes and remedies are diligently followed and is in place. If we pull out the names of lawyers (across board) who defended even convicted criminals, these "Respectable" ladies will have to run for covers.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Being a Law graduate, I, at 74 years, am relearning law from your masterpiece blog. Carry one. Your pen is mightier than sword.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Thanks to NDTV, there is good news for BJP. They just declared Kurien a "RAPIST"

    ReplyDelete
  20. Another piece of GEM. Marvelously written with accurate facts & in true spirit of our constitution. Hope these bimbos will read this and learn something instead of gossiping all the time sitting in AC studios. Thanks for this lovely piece of writing. KUDOS to you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Absolutely outstanding and thought provoking,kudos....

    ReplyDelete
  22. terrific article man. thanks

    ReplyDelete
  23. Excellent piece. You are doing a fantastic job exposing the hypocrisy of these people and of many in positions of power and influence. They peddle out nonsense so often, bereft of glaringly obvious facts and logic, and believe that people are stupid. Frankly people have been too passive and accepting for too long, driven oftentimes by the inducemwnts of vote bank politics. But thankfully, we are seeing the wmergence of people such as you willing to hold the mirror tothem and encourage them to see their nonsense. The problem is they will be in denial, refuse to look and try to tar you with being motivated and a crackpot.

    Keep up thw good work and ensurw that you do not give thwm any reason to succeed in thiwr atyempt to do so. The elephant of indias youth is in thw room and the worms that have been choking the development of this countrys people had bettwr realise it. They have an opportunity to transform themselves into butterflies if only they put their priviliged past behind and wake up. But will they?

    ReplyDelete
  24. The Media Medium cannot be Trusted any more. They just and only know's to Manipulate the news. Beginning with NDTV - They have a sure motto with their Anchor's biased one sided news which is easily Noticeable. The anchor's 1) Nidhi Razdan questions are the same on every subject. 2) Sonia Singh appearance makes no sense as she with her preferential news which she presents. 3) Barkha Dutt's works are always Anti, She repeats the Act, "One Who Leads With others in order to fulfill her desire to show the things in her order. 4) Srinivas Jain is good to innocent "intellectually". 5) Hindi Anchors were doing good job until 6 months ago but as if now they also have lost it. Coming to Times Now - The Channel Which is dying for only coverage, TRP,. The Nations want to know bla bla bla. Sudhir Jains(Times Of India Guy) MBA Technique works here with his bunch of Anchor's, Editors, Reporters. Coming to CNN IBN - Karan Thapar, Sagarika Ghose , Rajdeep Sardesai, Pallavi Ghose All This bunch of people are always high on something.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ravi - I am avid fan of your blog and finding it just exceptional...but you seems to start almost every article in very predictable opening, some tweets and something around it. May we expect a different start.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am tired of praising you Ravnarji.......please take one more praise.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ravi u should have mentioned about salman khurshid who is defence lawyer for SIMI. why media is not asking any questions to him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meaning you havent understood what Ravinar is saying ?

      Delete
    2. praveen, i got wat ravi said, but i meant that khurshid's example would be better than those stooges.

      Delete
  28. Nice article. Very well written but there's a slip. Please correct it.

    You wrote :
    "...The accused is not liable to prove he is guilty nor is his defence lawyer. It’s the job of the prosecution to prove him guilty."

    I think it should be: "...The accused is not liable to prove he is innocent nor is his defence lawyer. It’s the job of the prosecution to prove him guilty."

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Kid

      Your way of looking at it is right too. However, the point being made from the Prosecution V Defence.. I have put it that way to mean that "the accused is entitled NOT to self-incriminate". Thats why, he is allowed to choose silence.

      Delete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ravi - The transparency and clarity with which you write, it just not only give right information but also allow us to dig more n more about the facts and truth. Its because of you and other honest bloggers that we are well informed and not getting diverted by the MSM agendas. Most importantly, I feel that somebody truly care for "we the Indians". Certainly your contribution is extraordinary. I salute you sir. Thanks for your encouragement.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Believe me You Give Hope that there are People in the Media who still talk sane !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Grt article, in some ways good old doordarshan was lot more balanced than the modern news channels who seem to forget the purpose of journalism.
    Kudos to you on your great articles. Keep going

    ReplyDelete
  33. You have a unique way of putting forth thngs such that it makes us read w/o a break akin to listening to Modiji when he speaks.In the process we are learning so much.Thanks again for you touch a variety of topics even though your focus is media.We get educated regarding various basic facts/issues which is sufficient for common man :))

    ReplyDelete
  34. If the members of the Old Wives Wailing Club have even an iota of Vekkam, Maanam, Soodu, Soranai (Tamil words and English meanings cannot do justification but will try for the sake of non-tamil friends; Vekkam = Shame, Maanam = Prestige, Soodu = Self-respect, Soranai = Self-pride), they should do either of the following:
    - quit the profession
    - or seek an apology (must surely ring a bell!!!) from all viewers for spoiling the reputation of journalism as a profession.

    Since they have not done either, it should be clear that these people are cash/kind paid dalals and nothing else!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Eagerly waiting for your post on Modi's SRCC Speech and how the BAR and their ilk responded to it...There has to be 2 PARTS...lol

    ReplyDelete
  36. This hasn't been brought up yet, but would such sentiments exist if the judicial system in India delivered faster and cleaner? If court cases didn't take forever? If the high and mighty could buy themselves out of conviction? And witnesses were not threatened, and prosecutors were not forced to drop genuine charges? If political clout didn't decide court orders?

    An owner of a car by an East European MNC noticed serious irregularities in service, so he took the MNC to court and won the case. However, the MNC appealed against the court order and the case in the higher court took over four years, and his car was impounded- even as he paid EMIs on it. The justice system was flawed, and the MNC blatantly exploited it. Hardly anybody would be encouraged to take legal action when this happens.

    "I'll sue you in American court" - Chatur, 3 idiots.

    When a lawyer initially selected to defend Kasab was interviewed, he said that he'd deliver justice to Kasab well within Indian law- and a very angry letter to a newspaper said that the only justice within legal limits is hanging Kasab in public at the Gateway of India. Not some overpaid media moron's comment, but the middle-class paper reader's. No doubt lumpen justice is not acceptable at all, but the judicial system needs reforms, sooner than later.

    ReplyDelete
  37. A bit off topic, i admit, but the coverage of Modi's SRCC speech in the Chandigarh edition of the TOI-let paper is on page 1, to be sure. But it's in a small little patch on the left margin the size of a postage stamp. That means the speech has hit hard where it hurts. I reckon the Nazi papers would have covered the Normandy landings in a like manner.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ravinar,
    Its one of the best articles I have read of you. One Word "Brilliant" would suffice.
    Remember if Kasab had not been given defence lawyer, Pak apologists would have cried hoarse about miscarriage of justice.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hey buddy, i been reading ur blog from last 1 week (one of my friend told me about it ) and i just love ur writing style and agree on every single thing u wrote about XPT this one. Maybe im not as good person as most of u are here but i dont find anything wrong with ppl who dont wanna defend ppl like Kasab and Delhi rapist. I dont think tht kind of ppl deserve any trail or anything. If someone had rapped my close ones, i would have F*%$*NG killed them right there

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the time infinite - supporter exists for both good and bad. Meaning good and bad exists together. Both prevails together - no matter how monotonous or painful they are.

      So every judiciary system in the word gives right to both good and bad to put it's case so that reward/punishment can be granted. Trial is necessary, however it is duty of government with the help of good governance to ensure that it is fair.

      Delete
  40. Dear nskaile,

    The idea of the writer was not to either agree or disagree with any particular style of justice. His arguments were against the Media people who project themselves as pillar of Human rights, justice, blahblah & brazenly support an anti-constitutional demand. Hope you see the article in this spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @NSKaile @UmeshAnamika & Others

    The post is not about whether our justice system is smooth or fast. The post is also not about reforms. Common people like us may have our own thirst for instant justice on the streets or by lynch-mobs. There's a difference when Media figures and other public figures, in public service, start propagating that law and courts be thrown to the dustbin and their idea of justice be executed. They exist to educate and inform blood-thirsty people in society the rationality, reason and logic behind laws. That's their job. Their job is not to feed and fuel public anger and prejudice the legal system or themselves feed on public sentiments to question constitutional provisions that cover our judiciary system. Justice is not a beauty contest or an opinion poll in the media to be decided by a popularity vote.

    ReplyDelete
  42. As the talks of Modi becoming the PM is increasing NDTV (both English and Hindi) are getting panicky. Congress obviously looks worried but this NDTV is losing nerves. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Powder-Puff Girls" "2 Minute Orgasm Polls" LMAO. No better words to describe them.

    Great Article Raviji.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Agreed that few people in media are trying to make a mockery of law system, but then sometimes pressure from media and people are required to bring out the changes in Judiciary,becoz of public pressure and media, Govt. is ready to set up fast track courts. else min. of 10 years is fixed timeline for most cases.
    Media should know their limits too. few people are tarnishing the image of media, specially Legal-Bimbos to get 2-minute-orgasm they are ready to influence the people of India in wrong spirit of press.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dear Neil@Work,

    Yes, Social Media ( Not Main Stream Media) & Public pressure is necessary to force the Govt in action. Its not just about the bimbos in CNN-IBN & NDTV. Tomorrow the Congress party would probably re-route its investment into another news channel. In India all the pillars of Democracy have been systematically subverted by the Congress party to keep coming back to power.

    ReplyDelete
  47. SIMPLY SUPERB ......beautifully written .......full of information

    ReplyDelete
  48. sir, in writing this article you have done me a personal favour. i have always believed that a person needs to be honest and loyal to his profession. honesty is not just about not taking bribes. not doing what you are paid to do also tantamounts to dishonesty (to me personally). this is what irritates me about our journalists the most.
    what arun j did was execution of his professional responsibility with full honesty. the media however is projecting as if the very fact that arun j defended kurien he is (a) either one of the rapist (partner in crime) or (b) the very fact that arunj defended him he has to be innocent.
    and the funniest thing about these journalists is that they are experts in every domain under the sky and yet will do everything but their duties (again honestly).

    ReplyDelete
  49. I guess somewhere along, people are looking for quick action in all cases and media too believes that what they say is right. Would the MSM journalists then argue that Mr Modi's Home Minister was right in delivering justice through encounters? I believe someone is wrong and so I would not only NOT defend him but would also ensure that justice (as I see it) is delivered at the fastest possible means. How else other than an encounter can ensure such a decision?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bravo buddy! The media tries and hangs an individual imagining itself to be omnipotent, make no mistake, when they are tried they run like rabbits into the hole.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I have a slightly different view. Agreed that every accused has a right to defend himself and he is innocent till proven guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" by the prosecution. Unfortunately in the Indian context the second part applies only to the powerful. How do we explain the millions of under-trials languishing in our jails just because of over burdened judicial system does not have time for them. We have the classic Sunny Deol "tarikh pe tarikh" moment. And what happens when you are connected? Court hears your case speedily, Prosecution goes slow on filing charges, when it does file charges lots of loop holes are left open, and either you get bail or are shifted to a hospital (or in the reverse order, doesn't matter). Witnesses are compromised using sham, daam, dand and bhed. And who facilitates this? You bet, powerful, articulate, brilliant lawyers. Now I am also aware that morality is checked at the gates of the courthouse, but only a really schizophrenic person can well and truly do this. And when you ignore your morals long enough, you cease to be immoral and become amoral, a much more dangerous state. Thus for the sake of morals good lawyers should desist from defending the indefensible. Remember, on the day of judgement, we all have to answer not only for what we did, but also what we did not do.

    ReplyDelete
  52. wonderfully written article and though I very much want to agree with the content, I am unable to do that. There are so many cases pending in Indian Courts that 'crystal clear' cases should be solved by plea bargaining. Courts can meanwhile devote their valuable time on other important issues, like in the Kasab or the 16th December Nirbhayata case it was pretty obvious that the accused were guilty and deserved immediate punishment. Its good that our Constitution has made arrangements for every individual and guarantees us a legal right, but there should be some exceptions. I guess only by that way we can resusciate our legal system because justice delayed in justice denied.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome and are not moderated so as to allow free speech. However, comments that are off topic, abusive, defamatory or slanderous may be deleted. Comments disclosing personal information of individuals/entities will be deleted.Comments appearing here do not imply endorsement by author of this blog.