Editor,
An expert Committee of the Bar Council of India is considering a plea to ban lawmakers – Members of Parliament and Members of the Assemblies- from doubling up as practicing advocates, saying they are salaried public servants and cannot ride two horses at the same time. The petition filed by Supreme Court advocate Ashwini Upadhyay contended that MPs and MLAs draw their salaries from the Consolidated Fund of India, hence are “employees of the state”.
The BCI Rule 49 also restricts a salaried employee from practicing as an advocate, the petition said. Many senior advocates practicing in the Supreme Court are also party politicians and sitting MPs and even Ministers. He contended that it amounted to ‘professional misconduct” that MLAs and MPs, who get salary and other benefits from the public fund, appear against the government. Some of these lawmakers even hold corporate retainer-ships. They appear against the State to defend their lawbreaker clients in the Court of Law, which is the matter of conflict of interest. While an advocate should be fully dedicated to his profession, legislators are also expected to dedicate their fulltime to the public and their constituents ahead of their personal and financial interests,’ the petition said.
Justice Chelameshwar by jointly addressing a press conference at his residence and joined by Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurien Joseph have merely denigrated the judicial system. In a democracy there may be differences and dissensions but since the issue was an intra-judiciary tussle and partly an executive-judiciary one, it could have been sorted out in camera and not by public airing in an unnecessary/undue haste at the cost of the dignity of the Apex Court and creation of delusion in the minds of the general people of the country.
Liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with license to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the Judiciary. An Advocate in a profession as well as in his conduct should be diligent and conform to the requirements of the law by which an Advocate plays an important role in the preservation of justice system. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an Advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Any kind of deviance not only affects the system but corrodes the faith of the people at large.
The present unfortunate incident/ indecent revelation is because of intermixing of Executive and Judiciary Functions continued for long by allowing dual functioning of lawyer- leaders like Kapil Sibal, Salman Khurshid and Manish Tewari in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution of India for keeping the Executive, and the Judiciary independent for proper functioning & survival of democracy.
The Advocates Act, 1961 & the Bar Council of India Rules, 1949 / 2016 need to be amended to ban/debar dual functioning politicians as lawmakers and lawyers.
Yours etc.,
Samares Bandyopadhyay
Advocate, Kolkata High Court
Kolkata
Padmavati sacrifice and modern playboys
Editor,
Every community has its own perspective on an issue. That usually varies with time. What was considered outrageous some thirty years ago is pretty normal now. Why? This calls for serious introspection vis-a-vis the social changes, and our acceptance of a lot of things. Now we consume anything which is seemingly mouth-watering, even though it may cause social indigestion and spiritual anemia.
Well, almost the entire educated world condemned the ‘Karni Sena’ or Rajput community because they vehemently resisted a Bollywood film on Padmavati. These puritan Rajput folks felt sorely upset because they consider their queen Padmavati in the cinematic screen very sacrilegious. For ages, Rani Padmavati has been held in high esteem, more precisely, as the “paramount pride” of the Rajput, apart from others. What rubbed salt in their wound was when the Supreme Court finally upheld the ‘freedom of expression’ and issued a decree that all state governments should ensure the screening of Sanjay Leela Bansali’s film in their respective cinema halls. That triggered a series of backlashes. The Rajputs lost their sanity. They went on a rampage. They vandalized public property and pelted stones at a school bus, which was very uncalled for and inhumane too. Yes, historical records also caution us – ‘the fury of inferno and fury of crowds could always be disastrous’ — which our honorable judges failed to analyze and therefore take a sensible decision. Who will disagree that when cherished “pride” is hurt the crowds go crazy!
Should freedom of expression and flagrant entertainment be at the cost of social chaos? This is the height of foolishness. How amazing, our advanced folks are now heedless to the hostile consequences that could arise due to the clashes of opinions and belief systems. Should we not strive to create the atmosphere to strengthen the bonds of relationship with those we have been living with for centuries?
These days, most educated people believe that it’s no big deal even if the sharp edge of “mutual antagonism” punctures the social fabric. In any controversial issue, we make it legally justified overnight. Our motive is so narrow, so self-centered —- no one has right to disturb our enjoyment of fun and frolic, be it at the cost the values and belief systems of fellow brothers. This is how we refuse to forgo our short-lived entertainment. In order to meet this ‘demand and supply’, we have a swarm of skillfully crafty people who churn out a whole lot of titillating cinema, even by inviting voluptuous stars from Canada and USA, and serving them to us hot. If anyone protests against such objectionable movies then we cry to the hilt in their defense. Who else can defeat us? Our defensive vocabulary has been well enriched by the ‘freedom of expression’. We have at our disposal the invincible media and techno academia to bang the table!
Look at how we came out victorious. The film Padmavat got released. We have enjoyed the despotic invader being glamorized here, and many of us have now been eulogizing this brutal playboy through our write-ups. This is how we justify anything outrageous and feel like we are the modern times Khilji! Now let’s get down to the reality of the matter. Do our elites like to be “reminded” about anything ugly concerning their ancestors or ones they hold in high esteem? Does it not upset a child if he is “reminded” that his father was once a boisterous drunkard and gambler, and the mother was slyly chased after by a number of next door neighbours? Do these children then appreciate if any opportunistic person makes a film on that? I don’t think the children will ever tolerate that which reminds them of past sleaze. Then why do we expect the Rajputs to tolerate being reminded, most particularly, through the big-screen, that their “mother of pride” Padmavati was once “madly lusted after” by a lecherous Khilji? How could they endure to be haunted again that their “paragon of virtue and pride” was once about to be amorously desecrated by the over sensual invader from a far off land?
Yes, one’s prudence says, that our mind has been heavily “invaded” by a whole lot of lustful Khiljis. As a result we have become less accommodating, and more hurtful towards others. Anyway, the sacrificial Jauhar of brave Padmavati will never fail to inspire the Rajputs. At least to uphold the spirit of righteous courage and save themselves from the evil of modern times Khiljis.
Yours etc.,
Salil Gewali,
Via email