The subject which we are discussing today is very important in the present scenario. Few years back I was required to address a gathering of Lawyers on the subject of Professional Ethics.
During my research work on the subject topic I came across a Book. The heading of the Book was, “Profession of Law- A Noble Profession.” As per the article in the Book, profession of Law is considered to be a noble profession. As per the article in the Book, in the past, Kings used to decide the cases brought before them.
However, the Kings were not possessing expertise knowledge, so they used to take the help of Brahmins means scholarly people having knowledge of Dharma. With the help of such scholarly people, kings used to decide the dispute between the parties by giving their verdict.
Now a days, a duty is cast upon a judge to deliver a Judgement with the help of scholarly people i.e. Lawyers.
To give a justice to the parties is considered to be a very sacred and pious work. The lawyers therefore now are required to assist the Judge and to find out the truth and accordingly they are part and parcel of administration of Justice. The Judges and Lawyers both are associated in the sacred and pious work of administration of justice. Considering the same the profession of Lawyer is to be a noble profession. The Judges and Lawyers both are ultimately associated with such a pious work.
In my view, they should respect the role of each other. A Judge should not try to run down the Lawyer and Lawyer should always respect the Judge. A Judge should never try to project that he is superior nor the Lawyer should ever try to project that he is possessing better knowledge than a Judge.
As a matter of fact, both of them should try to find out the real truth and to do justice to a litigant whose case is under trial.
During the freedom movement, the Lawyers played an important role. Mahatma Gandhi, C.R. Das, Motilal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru, K.M Munshi all played important role in the freedom movement by sacrificing their lucrative practice at the Bar.
The justice is to be delivered by a Judge but the Lawyer Is having an important role in assisting a Judge so that the Judge can arrive at the correct conclusion of the matter.
During the internal emergency (June, 1975 to January, 1977) the majority of those who stood up and were counted where the Country’s practicing Lawyers they fought espousing human rights cases.
The relationship between Bench and the Bar should be cordial and friendly. There should not be any bitterness in any manner between them. When a Junior Advocate is arguing, the role of a Judge becomes more difficult as he is required to take extra care and to see that a cause of a litigant may not suffer in case the Advocate is not in a position to assist the Court in proper manner. A Junior Lawyer is required to be encouraged by a Judge so that he can put his point fearlessly. No lawyer should feel that he may not be comfortable to argue a case before a particular Judge.
Similarly it is the duty of a Lawyer not to misguide a Judge and is expected to give correct statement of facts before the Court. A performance of a Lawyer should be such that a Judge can always rely upon him and statement made by a Lawyer can be accepted without even verifying the record, that is the duty of the Lawyer towards the Bench.
The atmosphere in the Court should be tension free so that ultimately in a cool atmosphere a correct decision is arrived at. In a given case, even if the Lawyer is unable to point out point in his favour, a Judge after going through the matter can find out the point in his favour as the Judge is not a silent spectacular.
There was a case in the High Court in which a Judge found out a point in favour of appellant’s Advocate. The judge called upon the respondent’s Advocate on the said point. The respondent’s Advocate argued that Sir, this point is no taken by the Appellant in Appeal Memo.
The Judge reverted back to the appellant’s Advocate and told him that he has not taken this point in his Appeal Memo, so how can respondent’s Advocate reply?
The appellant’s Advocate argued that Sir, this is Your Lordship’s point and therefore it is not in my Appeal Memo as naturally Your Lordship’s point cannot find place in my Appeal Memo. The Court allowed the Appeal. This is the role of a Judge.
There are instances where there is an exchange of humour between a Judge and a Lawyer. Years back, in the Supreme Court, the matter was going on before the Bench of three Judges, suddenly one person tried to assault Judges with a knife in open Court. One of the Judges Justice Grover overpowered the assailant but in the process he suffered an injury on his head.
A Senior Advocate Mr. C.K. Daftory who was known for his humour went to see Justice Grover at the Hospital. He saw bandage on the forehead of Justice Grover. Mr. Daftroy in his usual style asked Justice Grover that Sir, how the assailant knew that this is the weakest part of your body? Both thereafter started laughing. That is the way in which Judges and Lawyers used to even play jokes on each other and that is how the atmosphere used to be cordial.
In my view, while deciding the cases, cordial atmosphere should prevail. The Lawyer should always respect the Judge, maintain the dignity of the profession and whatever may be the decision, same should be accepted without any bitterness. Judges should allow the Advocate to canvass his point without any interruption, should never try to run down the Advocate as ultimately both of them are having a common role that is to Justice to a party whose case is argued by a Lawyer and to be decide by a Judge.
There should be a mutual respect between the Bench and the Bar. Ultimately the Bar is like a mother of a Judge as the Judge is appointed from the Lawyers.
It is rightly said that a Judge and Lawyer are two wheels of the chariot of Justice and both of them are two sides of a coin. The Judges and Lawyers are required to put their 100% in the matter of administration of justice and nobody should ever try to pollute the fountain of Justice.
Pure and impartial justice is possible with cordial and harmonial relationship between the Bench and the Bar.
