Lawyer’s line of work distinctive, diverse from other professions

Lawyers are not merely in the business of law. They are there to ensure the administration of justice as well.

To say that a lawyer, like some other professionals, works merely to earn a living through his proficiency and dexterity is like misbalancing the scales of justice and weighing him down. A lawyer’s line of work is certainly distinctive and diverse from other professions and his place and position in the functioning of the country’s judicial delivery mechanism system is exceptional. His concerns travel beyond his own interests and mere responsibility towards his client and his welfare.

A near-disparaging remark, virtually reducing a lawyer’s role to that of a mere tradesman or service provider dealing with a product called law was only recently made in a movie hovering around the heinous offence of rape.

“We are in the business of law, not justice,” said Akshay Khanna to Richa Chadda, both actors depicted in the robes of a lawyer, in Bollywood flick “Section 375”. Nothing could have provided a fuzzier image of reality and righteousness than the interpretation and explanation of a profession that has almost always been placed in the realm of nobility by those who practice and those who benefit.

The fact that a righteous advocate, besides being a professional, also acts as an officer of the court and plays a role that is conceived and considered crucial to the administration of justice has never been in the sphere of conjectures and even debate. An honourable lawyer must always remember that the responsibility he discharges as an officer of court is in the nature public duty. The part he plays in the justice delivery apparatus is not capable of being defined in a narrow compass and he cannot be seen as a man merely carrying on with his profession for acquiring a livelihood. His contribution must be seen from the perspective of a beneficiary or the consumer of services rendered by him.

If Akshay Khanna’s assertion, that the lawyers are in the business of law and not justice, is reflection of the mood that is gradually setting in among a section of lawyers and is not merely a filmy dialogue, the approach needs to be shunned.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court only recently rapped a woman lawyer for “reprehensible conduct” in a couple’s protection matter. The Bench observed one of the petitioners, a teenaged girl, was allowed to go to the counsel’s house on her assurance of taking personal responsibility of the minor, instead of sending her to Nari Niketan. But she informed the court the next day that she did not stay at the advocate’s house.

The Bench asserted the counsel was not only a party to the fraud committed upon this court, but also an active instigator. “This court was led to believe that the custody of the minor could be entrusted to the advocate, who was expected to discharge her primary duty as an officer of the court instead of identifying with the cause of her clients,” the Bench added, while referring the case to the Bar Council.

In a set-up where the executive at times waits for the judiciary to take decisions on its behalf, and where the legislature is by the people, of the people, but not always for the people, advocates play a vital role to ensure the prevalence of justice.

A lawyer needs to know that he is obliged to work for the advancement of justice and effectual operation of the judicial machinery, like the judges. He is under ethical obligation to tell the judges the truth and keep away from dishonesty while protecting the interest of his client. He must keep in mind the code of behaviour that guides his professional conduct stems from duty he owes not just to his clients, but also the court, his legal adversaries and other lawyers. He need not forget a religious metaphor that a lawyer is, and must, ever be the high priest at the shrine of justice”.

The Supreme Court, in the case of “Re: vs Mr.K.K. Mishra @ Balram Advocate”, observed an advocate’s duty was as important as that of a judge. He, rather, has a large responsibility towards society and is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect.

“He is under an obligation to uphold rule of law. He must ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. He, who practices law, is not merely a lawyer, but acts as a moral agent. This character, he cannot shake off, by any other character on any professional character, he derives from the belief that he shares sentiment of all mankind. This influence of his morality is one of his possessions, which, like all his possession, he is bound to use for moral ends.

“Members of the Bar, like judges, are the officers of court. Advocacy is a respectable noble profession on the principles. An advocate owes duty not only to his client, but also to the court, to society and, not the least, to his profession”.

The Supreme Court in the case of “Harishankar Rastogi v. Girdhari Sharma” added the Bar, indeed, is an extension of the system of justice; an advocate is an officer of court. He is the master of an expertise, but more than that accountable to the court and governed by a high ethic. The clients’ aspirations and desires are almost always limited to self-interest, unless the matter involves public interest. But a lawyer’s concern travels much beyond and includes, among other things, an effort to uphold the exalted image of judiciary.

Those distinguishing between law and justice, while giving more weightage to the former, need to know the lawyer’s gown has a mysterious piece of triangular cloth attached to the left shoulder. One of the theories is that it was once a money sack for brief fees as it was beyond the profession’s dignity to accept money in hand.

BENCH MARK
by Saurabh Malik

Law, and the order
Long custody not sole ground for bail in heinous crimes

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that Supreme Court judgment long custody was only one of the factors and could not be the sole ground for bail was applicable more to cases of heinous crime where the trial was in advanced stages or had made some headway. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, in the process, distinguished between cases involving heinous crimes where long period of incarceration is no ground for granting bail, and other matters of less odious nature where injuries are not caused. Justice Grewal also ruled that an accused could not be kept in custody for an indefinite period, while granting regular bail to an accused behind bars from more than three years for alleged involvement in an arson case. Justice Grewal asserted there was no denying the proposition laid down by the Apex Court that long custody was only one of the factors and could not be the sole ground for bail. Justice Grewal added the court was also conscious that the right to speedy trial was one of the components of right to life and liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 21. Referring to the facts of the case in hand, Justice Grewal observed charges were yet to be framed while 137 witnesses had been cited in the ‘challan’. Although arson by a mob had no place in a civilised society governed by rule of law, it was to be borne in mind that no person was injured in the incident.