“20th August, 2019: 20th Informal Discussion Group Session by Ms. Indira Jaising on ‘Role of Lawyers in defence of the Rule of Law’ “.

On August 20, 2019 the Informal Discussion Group of NLU, Odisha organised a guest lecture on role of lawyers in defence of the Rule of Law. The lecture was delivered by Ms. Indira Jaising who is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court.  The lecture commenced at 3:30 pm and continued for 1:30 hours, with one hour reserved for the lecture and half hour for the question answer session.

The session started with Ms. Indira Jaising questioning the monopoly of the state in its power to prosecute. She further discussed the special position occupied by the lawyers in the society in order to preserve the rule of law. She observed that how at times lawyers are called on for works like defending terrorists which make them unpopular among the general public. Ms. Jaising in extension of the same gave her own specific instance in which she in order to preserve the rule of law defended Afzal Guru and filed a curative petition on his behalf.  She felt the Parliament terror attack accused was not aptly represented in the trial court and this was also the reason why she termed the sentence of the terrorist in the trial court as miscarriage of justice.

She described the cab rank rule as a hindrance in turning down cases which are against the ethics of the individual. Adding a caveat she said that even though the cab rank rule should be preserved but the lawyers should only tell the law and not what the client wishes to hear. According to her a lawyer should not compromise one’s professional integrity and bent the law to suit one’s client. She further opined that a lawyer is not be the hired spokesperson of the client but has a higher responsibility to the public at large. Adding her personal anecdote in signifying the need of professional integrity a lawyer needs to have, she told that when she was fighting for the Kathua rape victim and one of the main witnesses was himself accused of rape, she restraint herself from representing him in the court in spite of being approached several times. She reasoned that because of her belief that the rape laws in this country are sexist and not apt, so if she would have represented him she couldn’t have been the best.

Thereafter, she emphasised on the independence of the lawyers from the judiciary and the executive. She heavily criticised the press release of the Bar council of India praising the executives decision of revocation of Article 370. She also said that her answer, to the questions raised by the 4 judges of the Supreme Court in a press conference in January 2017, regarding the democracy being in danger, would have been a big yes because there are threats such as one being the contempt of court which is highly misused like recently in the Madras High Court. She described contempt of court as a sword hanging over the lawyers head. According to her lawyers should be respectful towards the judges but not observe sycophancy and succumb to the pressure of the judges.

 Thereupon, the audience asked questions to the guest on multiple issues concerning the profession of law especially in context to the cab rank rule, maintaining one’s integrity in these times wherein there are dearth of opportunities and  about the bar council. Ms. Jaising answered all the questions with utmost wit, sagacity and at times with a pinch of emotion and humour as well. When specifically being quizzed about how can one dissent and have a good practice at the same time, Ms. Jaising said that her generation has lived in the times of democracy but this generation isn’t as lucky as hers and so it is not easy to dissent in this authoritarian regime but in this country never will be there be a dearth of cases for a lawyer so in spite of it being difficult to preserve one’s ethics, a good ethical practice is not impossible.

Further, in order to answer questions relating to role of lawyers she said that role of lawyers as a system is of oral arguments and the major emphasis and power lies with the one who stands and argues, and it doesn’t matter what the client insists on to be a part of the pleadings. In last round of the questions she was asked about her reason behind choosing the law to which she jokingly replied that she chose law as she knew she won’t inherent her father’s business and further she didn’t want her parents to pay dowry for her marriage. She concluded on an emotional note, because of the recent accusations being alleged against her, by saying that she finds law as a beautiful discipline and she has followed it the way she has described and it is now for the people to decide whether she is a criminal or a contributor to this field of law.

The session culminated with handing over the token of gratitude to the esteemed guest by our Registrar Dr. Yogesh P. Singh.