![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
HOME | NEWS | REPORT |
March 10, 2000
NEWSLINKS
|
Jethmalani unfazed by SCBA expulsion![]() Union Law Minister Ram Jethmalani, who was expelled from the Supreme Court Bar Association for his "unbecoming and hostile behaviour" towards the advocate community, today described the action of the General Body Meeting as unimportant. "My only reaction is, 'God forgive them for they do not know what they are doing'," Jethmalani told rediff.com. But former minister of law and justice in the Janata Party government Shanti Bhushan, who was suspended by the SCBA along with senior Supreme Court advocate Kamini Jaiswal, today described his suspension as illegal and unethical. Bhushan and Jaiswal were suspended for not following the bar directive asking them not to attend the courts on February 24 when the lawyers struck work to protest against government's decision to amend the Civil Procedure Code. "The action of the SCBA is totally unjustified and illegal. If the lawyers don't want themselves to be associated with me than I can do nothing about it. Some lawyers who have vested interests do not want the present government to amend the Civil Procedure Code that will improve the lot of their clients. They want that the cases should go on forever so that they can milk the litigants. "When an advocate accepts a brief, he takes a pledge to protect his litigant's rights/interests. So a strike by advocates is against the very ethics for which the advocates community stands. There is no moral justification for them to go on strike merely to protect their personal interests," Shanti Bhushan told rediff.com. Kamini Jaiswal, who is known for her closeness to Jethmalani, said she had been expecting the expulsion. "When the advocates' body called for a strike and directed its members not to attend the courts, I had attended, thereby violating their order. So when they announced my expulsion along with Jethmalani and Shanti Bhushan I was not surprised. "But by taking action against us they have committed contempt of the Supreme Court order dated December 7,1994," Jaiswal said. "In the rare case where any association of lawyers, including statutory bar councils, considers it imperative to call upon and or/advise members of the legal profession to abstain from appearing in courts on any occasion, it must be left open to any individual member/members of that association to be free to appear without let, fear or hindrance or any other coercive step," she said, quoting the apex court order. Senior constitutional expert K K Venugopal refused to comment on the matter. "This is the decision of the GBM and I will stick by it," he said. Some leading advocates are upset with the decision but dare not voice their views lest they too invite the wrath of the SCBA and other advocate bodies. "When the strike started on February 24 we had an issue. Now the main issue has receded into the background and what we are striking for now is the action of certain police officers who ordered a lathicharge on the lawyers. The issue of the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code has been forgotten," said an agitated Supreme Court advocate. "The government has already accepted the demand to set up a commission headed by a sitting member of the Supreme Court to investigate the circumstances that led to brutal attack on the lawyers by the Delhi policemen. How often is a demand like this accepted by the government," asked one other advocate. Others asked why the advocates did not move the high court and get relief in this matter. What are the amendments that the government wants to carry out in the Civil Procedure Code? "According to the new laws the right of amendment was sought to be taken away. Today we can file an amendment to a suit if there are new developments. According to the new procedure, we will have to file a fresh petition if we want to amend the petition. Then they wanted to take away the right to appeal against the single judge order before a division bench in the high courts. Third, they wanted to make it mandatory to file statements within 30 days from the day of issuing of the notice. Fourth, the government is trying to open the legal sector to foreign advocates," says Pinky Anand, a high court advocate. Kamini Jaiswal does not agree with the agitating advocates that the government had not given them enough time to react to the amendments. "These amendments are based on the report of the Malimatth Committee, set up by the government to suggest measures to speed up trails in the courts. The government sent them for consideration of the various bar associations in 1997 and the Bar Council of India has even written a letter to the government saying that the amendments should be implemented as early as possible. Now they are saying they did not know this," she said. Jaiswal has filed a contempt petition in the apex court against the striking advocates and the matter has been listed for March 13 in the court of the chief justice of India. |
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
MONEY |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL SINGLES | NEWSLINKS | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL BOOKINGS AIR/RAIL | WEATHER | MILLENNIUM | BROADBAND | E-CARDS | EDUCATION HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | CONTESTS | FEEDBACK |