Uday Lalit

I am seeing a lot of stupid comments against Uday Lalit, whose name has been recommended for appointment as a Supreme Court Judge.

I personally know Lalit as a man of high integrity. He often appeared before me, and I always found him fully prepared, courteous and competent. It is said that he represented Amit Shah and many criminals in cases. 

In reply I wish to say firstly that Lalit was a lawyer practising on the criminal side. Obviously his clients will often be alleged criminals. Secondly, professional ethics require that a lawyer cannot refuse a brief. Thirdly, a lawyer cannot be identified with his client.

The comments against Lalit are highly unfair

Opening Courts 365 days a year

The Chief Justice of India has said that Courts should remain open 365 days in a year. How is this possible ? Does a Judge not require some rest ? Is he not a human being with a family to look after ?
It is true that while many Judges work hard, others do not. But even a hard working Judge requires some rest and has a family.

Similarly, lawyers and registry officials, too have families to look after and, being human beings, need some rest. I am not holding a brief for Judges who do not work hard. All I am requesting is for the public to consider the situation.

The Allahabad High Court, in which I was a Judge (from 1991 to 2004) had set a norm that a Judge of the subordinate judiciary ( i.e. from Munsif upto District Judge) should have at a time not more than 300 cases before him. When I was a senior Judge in Allahabad High Court I enquired from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, who had come to meet me, how many cases he had in his Court alone. He replied 30,000. Similarly, I asked a judge posted in Ghaziabad how many cases he had in his court alone. He replied 21,000. Another subordinate judiciary judge told me he had 15,000 cases pending in his court alone.

This shows the plight of the judiciary. After all we are not supermen. If a man can carry a maximum load of, say, 100 pounds, and if an elephant is placed on his head, what will happen ? He will collapse. The massive load of arrears is simply too heavy for the judiciary to carry, and the filing of new cases is also huge.

To decide a case properly takes some time. After all, the Judge has to read the papers, hear arguments from both sides, think over the matter, read the law books, and then only a high quality judgment can come. It cannot come in a second by a wave of Alladin's magic lamp !

People do not know this situation and yet blame the judges for not working hard.

I again repeat, I am not holding a brief for Judges who do not work hard. Also, I am not holding a brief for corrupt Judges. While many Judges are honest, there are some who are corrupt. But how much can even an honest and hard working Judge do in the face of such massive arrears? Lawyers and registry officials too, being human beings, require some rest.

Moreover, even during vacations all courts have vacation benches to deal with urgent cases.
In U.S.A. 97% cases are disposed off by mediation, not adjudication. We too must find some alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. But asking Judges to work 365 days in a year is, with due respect to the Chief Justice of India, no solution

The Pakistan Supreme Court “has flouted all canons of Constitutional Jurisprudence"

When I was  a student of law in the Allahabad University, I had read of the British Constitutional principle 'The King can do no wrong". At that time I did not understand the significance of this principle and what it really meant. It was much later, when I was in law practice in the Allahabad High Court that I understood its real significance.

The British were experienced and able administrators. They realized from their own long, historical experience that while everybody should be legally liable for his wrongs and made to face Court proceedings for the same, the person at the apex of the whole Constitutional system must be given total immunity from criminal proceedings ,otherwise the system could not function. Hence the King of England must be given total immunity from criminal proceedings. Even if he commits murder, dacoity, theft, or some other crime the King cannot be dragged to Court and made to face a trial.

 One may ask, why should the King be given this immunity when others are not? The answer is that in the practical world one does not deal with absolutes. The British were one of the most far sighted administrators the world has known. They realized that if the King is made to stand on the witness box or sent to jail the system could not function. A stage is reached at the highest level of the system where total immunity to the person at the top has to be granted. This is the only practical view .

  Following this principle in British Constitutional Law almost every Constitution in the world has incorporated a provision giving total immunity to Presidents and Governors from criminal prosecution.

 Thus, Section 248(2) of the Pakistan Constitution states:

"No criminal proceedings whatsoever shall be instituted or continued against the President or Governor in any Court during his term of office."

The language of the above provision is clear, and it is a settled principle of interpretation that when the language of a provision is clear the Court should not twist or amend its language in the garb of interpretation, but read it as it is.

 I therefore fail to understand how proceedings on corruption charges (which are clearly of a criminal nature) can be instituted or continued against the Pakistan President.

 Moreover, how can the Court remove a Prime Minister? This is unheard of in a democracy. The Prime Minister holds office as long he has the confidence of Parliament, not confidence of the Supreme Court.

 I regret to say that the Pakistan Supreme Court, particularly its Chief Justice, has been showing utter lack of restraint which is expected of the superior Courts.In fact the Court and its Chief Justice have been playing to the galleries for long. It has clearly gone overboard an flouted all canons of Constitutional Jurisprudence.

 The Constitution establishes a delicate balance of power, and each of the 3 organs of the State, the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary must respect each other, and not encroach into each other's domain, otherwise the system cannot function. It seems to me that the Pakistan Supreme Court has lost its balance and gone berserk. If it does not now come to its senses I am afraid the day is not far off when the Constitution will collapse, and the blame will squarely lie with the Pakistan Supreme Court, particularly its Chief Justice