'Unfair To Target A Lawyer For Appearing For A Particular Client' : Justice Lokur

I think that it's unfair to target a lawyer for appearing for a particular client", said Justice (Retd.) Madan B. Lokur, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India at a virtual session hosted by Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum and Women in Criminal Law Association. "If a lawyer is dealing with hundreds of COFEPOSA cases, you can't say that he is also a smuggler. I don't think the Judge should ever get involved in the relationship between a lawyer and a client", the judge commented.Held on Friday, the 20th of November, the webinar provided a platform for Justice Lokur to interact with Advocates Warisha Farasat, Tara Narula, Shalini Gera and Sowjhanya Shankaran and deliberate upon the topic of "Defending Liberties". The Writ of Habeas Corpus The session commenced with Narula underlining the importance of the writ of Habeas Corpus and invited Justice Lokur to shed a light upon the same. "In my view, the writ of habeas corpus should be used liberally by the Courts. Matters of preventive detention under MISA, COFEPOSA and, now NSA and others, involve putting someone in detention without any trial for years", stated Justice Lokur. He then informed the participants that the Supreme Court has been, historically, very liberal in allowing this writ. "If you go through the judgments, there are very few cases where they have not been entertained. In fact, Supreme Court has also said that another habeas writ can be filed if one is dismissed. They have also said that a petition does not need to be filed and even a postcard can be sent. The interpretation has been liberal. There are different ways to go about it and I would give it the widest possible interpretation". Advocate Warisha Farasat was then asked to weigh in with her extensive experience on habeas corpus petitions. Making two quick points, Farasat succinctly informed the audience that the writ was time-sensitive and it was the duty of the Courts to take it seriously as most of the people who approached them did not have an alternative remedy. She further emphasized on the need to put the State to notice. "Another thing is that the State must be put to notice. This is something which might be lacking as it is contrary to the guidelines put down by the Supreme Court itself. Tough questions must be put to the State", noted Farasat. Advocate Shalini Gera then pointed out that need for a functional judicial system, and for people's faith to be reposed in it, for the effectiveness of Habeas Corpus. She recounted her experience while deal with a matter pertaining to the detention of Sukma-based tribal activist Podium Panda, who had refuted being tortured by the police when he was produced before the Court, only to confide in his wife later on that he had lied about the same as he had no faith in the Court itself. How Should Lawyers Strategise For Cases Pertaining to Preventive Detention Advocate Sowjhanya Shankaran, referring to the Delhi Riots and how many of her clients had been charged under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, stated that securing liberty was extremely important. In this context, she asked Gera and Farasat on ways to strategise in cases dealing with such stringent process. Gera observed, "It's the process that kills you. It gets to you. Even with acquittals, it's not that we managed to get people out in a short amount of time. Every case depends on the pressing need at that point. UAPA is a very political case, always. All I can say is that, you have to learn the Court and sometimes, you have to give up on something". To this, Farasat added that many a times, State had the tendency to file voluminous charge sheets that would run into 10,000 pages, but had no substance. "As lawyers, we must not get intimidated. A lot of it is electronic evidence. We must look at them carefully, even if they have no meaning. You have to go behind all these pages and figure out what is prosecutable. Another learning is to stay the course and be patient. UAPA matters take years. But, like any other matter, you have to stay the course", opined Farasat. Media Trials The session also witnessed a conversation on how lawyers should counter leaking of evidence by the Prosecution in sensitive cases. Narula wondered whether one should fight fire with fire, however, the same was frowned upon. On this matter, Justice Lokur stated that fire should be fought with water. "You should fight fire with water. You should tell the Court about the statements. The Court is responsible for it. Not you, or the media. Where do these WhatsApp messages and disclosure statements come from? It is the Prosecution. But, it is up to the Court to bring them in line. If they don't do anything, then you should fight fire with fire."Farasat, agreeing with Justice Lokur, added that the advice was wise, especially when it came to sub judice matters. "The investigative agency...

'Unfair To Target A Lawyer For Appearing For A Particular Client' : Justice Lokur

Radhika Roy

Tags