Reports indicate that Mr. Ram Jeth Malani, Senior Supreme Court Advocate, Former BJP Top Leader, Former Law Minister, has initially sent a bill of about Rs. 38 million as fees, and expenses to Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, Delhi Chief Minister. It appears that Mr. Kejriwal wanted to pay the bill from the Exchequer of the Delhi Government. There are reports which indicate that Mr. Sisodia, Delhi Dy. Chief Minister wanted the Delhi Govt. Officials to clear the bill, without sending it to the Delhi Lieutenant Governor. But, that was not so easy. Hence, according to Media Reports, Mr. Ram Jeth Malani has come forward to argue the defence of Mr. Kejriwal, FREELY treating him as a poor client. Here is a link to the report: Click here to go to http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/arvind-kejriwal-ram-jethmalani-legal-fee-arun-jaitley-case/1/919953.html.
Link to DeccanChronicle.Com, which has some additional quotes attributed to Shri Ram Jeth Malani: Click here to go to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/050417/will-defend-arvind-kejriwal-for-free-says-ram-jethmalani.html.
"...I shall defend Arvind Kejriwal in the defamation case slapped on him by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley without taking any fee if the Delhi Chief Minister cannot afford to pay him."
"...The row over the Delhi government’s move to clear my bills for fighting the case has been “instigated” by the Union finance minister".
"...it is the government’s duty to defend the Chief Minister. ...I will certainly defend him even if he can’t pay, but he said ‘no, I want to pay, send us the bills’, so I have sent the bills. Even if the government does not support him, I will. ... If necessary, I will support him for his livelihood because he is a clean force compared to Arun Jaitley, ...”
"...The bills totalled around 3.4 crore. ...If he is unable to pay I will do it for free. I render free services to 90 per cent of my clients ..."
ybrao-a-donkey's views not intended to be imposed on others:
There will be nothing wrong for a State/UT Government to defend in Courts, the actions / communications of its functionaries / officials, as long as their communications are made in their official capacities, following proper procedures, at proper fora.
If the 'defaming' comment is made by Mr. Arvind Kejriwal, in his capacity as Chief Minister of Delhi, then, it will be reasonable for him, and Mr. Ram Jethmalani to expect that its DEFENCE BILL is to be paid by the Government of Delhi. How to distinguish official comments from private personal comments?
Solution 1:
Reproduce all comments / allegations made by the Chief Minister of a State, in writing. Writings are to be made on Official Letterheads. After the affixing signature of CM, it is better to add his Office Seal. Before and above the signature of the Chief Minister, it will be better to add "For and on behalf of the Government of Delhi". In case of digital / email / electronic communications, wherever possible digital signatures and encryptions can be added. In case of oral comments / observations, an Official Videographer who should be an employee of the Delhi Government, can be employed to produce duly recorded videos, and its copies.
Approvals for Expenses
While the Chief Minister or his Dy. Chief Minister cannot be sole judges to decide on whether to bear the expenses on behalf of the State, I believe that everything cannot be centralised into the hands of the Governors / Lieutenant Governors who now-a-days act as Clerks of the Central Government.
In India, even State Cabinets tend to be slaves of Chief Ministers, and Central Cabinets tend to be the slaves of the Prime Ministers, and hence the question of defending CMs/PMs at State Expenses cannot be left to the Cabinets.
Better to obtain approvals from Legislatures
Though not a perfect solution, it will be better, if the decisions are taken by State Assemblies, and in case of Prime Ministers- by the Parliaments. For the purpose Approval Resolutions can be proposed in the Lower House, the reasons and the circumstances which have led to the legal cases can be discussed, and approval to defend the cases at the expense of State Exchequer can be given. This is on the assumption that our Legislatures will be filled with members who can view problems objectively, independent of party affiliations.
These proposals for sanction of funds to bear expenses to defend cases against Government functionaries (both politicians and bureaucrats), should as far as possible be present before the Legislatures for prior prior approval, giving approximate estimates of likely expenditure, name of the advocates proposed, break up of their fees for various purposes, other expenses etc. Only in exceptional emergencies, post facto confirmations /ratifications can be obtained from Legislatures.
CLAIM OF SHRI RAM JETHMALANI THAT 90% OF HIS CASES ARE FREE CASES ON BEHALF OF POOR
I am unable to believe it. But he is a NONAGENARIAN. Difficult to doubt him. However, I believe, as citizens, we expect him to disclose the names of the poor persons/institutions he argued FREE, with some details such as nature of dispute, year, court, success/failure etc. He can place these details on his web page / social media page. There is nothing wrong in cross-subsidisation per se (Charging the Rich, and serving the poor). Even doctors and Hospitals can do it, but they do not seem to undertake such useless things (useless things in their opinion), except in the Returns they submit to the Government, if at all they submit, when required by law.
Wherever / Whenever possible, State Assemblies can pass Resolutions ratifying the statements made by Chief Ministers.
WHY DO MANY STATE GOVERNMENTS BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN DEFEND SUCCESSFULLY/WIN CASES ONLY WHEN THEY APPOINT A HIGH PROFILE LAWYER?
Governments are supposed to be RATIONAL ORGANISATIONS. They cannot afford to be irrational, and citizens/voters will have to dump irrational Governments, when they get opportunity to vote.
Usually film producers, distributors entertain irrational beliefs that their films will rake heaps of moolah only when they make films with Mega Heroes such as Salman Khan, Shah Rukh Khan. Rajani Kanth. But Governments should not have such fallacious beliefs that they will win cases only when they employ high profile lawyers. The success of a film depends largely on its storyline, and to some extent on the treatment given to it, i.e. the manner in which it is presented to the audience. The same is the case with recipes, beverages such as coffee, tea, where tastes and flavours emerge from the quality and quantity of the ingredients used. In case of suits, their successes or failures depend on basically on 'justice is on which side'. The manner in which the Counsel presents the case may initially impress judges, but ultimately the ratio decidendi will depend on the strength of the CAUSE OF JUSTICE. Of course, evidences and arguments have their value, in affecting the judgement, but they cannot make UNJUSTIFIABLE CAUSES, JUSTIFIABLE.
Then, what is expected of/from a Counsel? What is expected from Judges?
Counsel should not be negligent or lethargic. He-she must be alert. And of course, the Judges have to give sufficient opportunities to the Counsels.
The general impression among many lawyers all over India is that :
*High profile lawyers get encouragement from Judges, while starters are treated like a Cinderella in her mother's house.
*High Profile lawyers can get their cases heard early,
*High Profile lawyers can get easy adjournments when needed.
*High profile lawyers can confuse or pressurise judges.
Etc. Etc.
COURTS HAVE TO DISPEL THE ERRONEOUS BELIEFS OF STARTER ADVOCATES
And these beliefs, may they be only misconceptions, lead to HUGE DEMAND FOR HIGH PROFILE LAWYERS, LEADING TO MILLIONS OF BUCKS THROWN AWAY BY CLIENTS AS THEIR FEES, while poor lawyers starve. It is high time that Supreme Courts and High Courts take adequate steps for dispelling this type of apprehensions among lawyers and clients. After all, Lawyers are intended only to assist the Judges in arriving at truth, and they are employees of the Court. Though fees is paid by clients, lawyers are not supposed to be the SERVANTS AND SLAVES OF THE CLIENTS.
State and Central Governments should not fall into the above type of pits, of appointing lawyers only by their name, and demand.
COURTS SHOULD APPOINT LAWYERS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES
When clients are given freedom to chose their own lawyers, rich clients chose high profile lawyers paying millions as fees. Poor clients are left with residues. The impression that High Profile Lawyers are geniuses capable of winning cases, and that low profile lawyers are duds make no sense. Heroes charge millions for acting in films, and their films bomb at box office. There are several simple straight cases argued by HIGH PROFILE LAWYERS which have failed in getting even simple remedies. This is because Lawyers do their duty. Judges do their duty. Hence, clients have to shed their foolish beliefs. Can we expect that Supreme Court/High Courts will create an environment which melts away the mists and smogs before the clients' eyes? Or will they call us to court and convict us for Contempt of Court?
To continue adding / deleting / modifying. जोडने को वस्तु हैं। ఇంకా వ్రాయాల్సినవి ఉన్నాయి.
No comments:
Post a Comment
ఘోరమైన విమర్శలకు కూడ స్వాగతం, జవాబులు ఇవ్వబడతాయి. Harsh Criticism is also welcome.