Desicritics Comments on Ram Jethmalani Questions Judges' Integrity In Jessica Lal - Manu Sharma Case

Comment by Hardy

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:23:48 EST

Sakshi...in continuation to the thanks i offered... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5361716.stm seems to suggest that it is not always the case...Search for lawyer in this article... Can you share a link where a more detailed,reliable and specific information in this regard is available...BTW i think that in other criminal cases(apart from murder), this kind of enforcement does not exist.

Comment by Sakshi

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 05:24:09 EST

Sujai - As a matter of fact, The Jessica Lall murder case is a perfect example of 'responsible media'. If the media hadn't taken interest than I really doubt if the case would have been re-opened again. As stated in the post itself, agree the Indian media isn't always to-the-point but I do feel that they have done a fantastic job is spreading across the nation the plight of families like the Lalls and Mattoos.

Comment by Hardy

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:14:34 EST

Sakshi...thanks for update...I was not aware of it... I thought if reqd aggrieved party can hire their own lawyer...May be "this law" itself needs to undergo a change...thx...we the public should rather fight more ferociously for change of this law than for this particular/specific case...A change in this law will benefit many more...again i may not have enough fortitude to explain/comment on the fact, as to why has it not been always like that...

Comment by Hardy

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:11:39 EST

Sakshi...thanks for update...I was not aware of it...I thought if reqd aggrieved party can hire their own lawyer...May be "this law" itself needs to undergo change...thx...the public should rather fight more ferociously for change of this law than than for this particular case...A change in this law will benefit many more...again i have not may a enough fortitude to comment on the fact as to why has it not been always like that...

Comment by Sujai

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:02:58 EST

Sakshi: Public and Media is entitled to their opinion. My only contention is when such opinions form the basis for a judgement or verdict, as seen from Afzal's case, where the judges pronounced "to satisfy collective conscience". What is collective conscience? Who measures it? Isn't media drumming up support and causing hysteria? If so, is that affecting the judges and judgement? While Judiciary has a role to play, so does the media. It has to be responsible, and know its limits. If needed, it should educate the masses that opinions and judiciary are separate. It should define its scope and limitations before starting such discussions. Taking popular opinions is good fun, and reflect the mood of the poeple, but is it a basis to argue that people are seeking a verdict one way or the another? I am all for free media and unrestrained public opinion. Having said, we need to shape this media and public opinion in a constructive manner. Have debates, have discussions, let people be taught how the judicial procedure works. Say what are the facts, what are speculations, and then let there be a debate. Now a days, I see TV reporting news, and most often it is their opinions. Have a section for opinion, and say it is opinion. Have a section for news, and say it is news. Let people come up with their opinions and views on the topic.

Comment by Sakshi

Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:43:40 EST

Hardy : "If people are so concerened by JL, why do not they pool in and hire a lawyer as apt as Ram..." Well just for your information : Since it's a murder case, the case falls in the hands of the State and NOT the victim or in this case the victim's family. The Lalls are NOT permitted to hire a private lawyer and therefore have to fight their case with the help of the prosecution....(lawyers) provided by the State Government. AND THIS IS THE LAW. Sujai - Agree the legal procedures should go on un-disturbed but that doesn't mean that the MEDIA or the PUBLIC do not have a right to form an opinion. If people like Manu Sharma and Jethmalani...have the rights to justify themselves, then so do the people to form an opinion against them. Right?

Comment by Sujai

Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:47:17 EST

I agree with Hardy on this. Media can say what it wants to say. Legal procedure should not be affected or influenced by public opinion.

Comment by Hardy

Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:12:53 EST

If people are so concerened by JL, why do not they pool in and hire a lawyer as apt as Ram... Even Ram Jeth Milani can twist a case only to an extent...he can not deny obvious proofs...does anybody( who was there in party and had seen murder) have the courage to come upfront and be a witness...if no...why single out Ram Jeth Milani. Ram Jeth Milani is as much to be blamed as those people who are not coming upfront despite being witness to crime. BTW, If Manu has indeed committed murder he must be punished...and i am all for it...but see they story that media has been baking all these years is also as hollow as some of the arguments given by Manu Sharma's defense. Media story: Jasica refused drink...Manu took up a pistol and shot her point blank...does not it seem on obvious inspection that there is a whole lot of missing link between the two incidents...there must have something happend on the scene(remarks and comments by JL probably) which would have provoked Manu to take this extreme step in the heat of moment/drunkard state. No I am not defending Manu here, because the onus is entirely with Manu...as no body can murder somebody how so ever bad mouthing may happen...but we see in everyday life that most quarrels start because of sharp tongues, and subsequently balloon into fights and crimes of more serious nature... it is also possible that Manu had been misbehaving with JL..all in all we have to have a degree of belief in overall judicial process otherwise the total system will collapse. We have to respect our law/contitution which believes that even if 10 guilty are released 1 innocent should not be punished...

Comment by Raj

Tue, 7 Nov 2006 21:54:18 EST

Mohit - Are you a bit zonked in the head. You seem to have one so tangent with the conversation/issue at hand. People like you can't help out in anything...all they do is state statistics but when it comes to working towards it...you easily adopt the "ignorance" attitude. You point your finger at Sakshi...but have you ever even bothered to read her blog. Read the issues and topics...she has discussed and worked on. When you point your finger at someone...remember that the rest are point back at you. So kindly give something of value or do something pro-active....or just shut-up and let others do whatever they can. Mohit...its people like that give us Indians a shoddy name.

Comment by Mohit Replies

Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:19:09 EST

You say 'you hate Manu Sharma'. I say hatred is too precious to waste on something like this. Since you have so much hatred please strait some of it on what follows and I hope you are left with some more. If it wasn't for the sheer pleasure we all get talking about prominent people... Atrocities far greater than this would have served much deserved attention... Shooting of a model at a page 3 party where no one has the courage to come up and say they were present (how can they). The guy accused turns out to be rich and well connected so we have the whole media and the common man talking about it(love it don't we)... People were maimed in the gujrat communal violence the media had anything to do with families of those affected. I saw the commercial bark they let out. Talking about comparisons: Why don't you hate another guy who killed SIX sleeping on a footh path walks free? Another bollywood actor who killed in state of inebriation. What's with this one that's got all your nerves tickling? Your exceptionally smart comparisons: Matoo case the guy strangulated her pre planned it raped her and criminals like him deserve what he got. What I disdain are people like you who live their lives comfortably numb and talk with a mouth like you do. I disdain hypocrites... Oh and you must hate Manu Sharma because from where I see it He is guilty ...yes of contributing in some way to these statistics - number of murders in India between 1998 and 2000: 37,170 - murders committed in Uttar Pradesh: 7,200 to 7,500 per year [HT Jun 04] - registered cases of eve-teasing for Mar - Aug 2003 in Indian metropoles: Delhi: 744 -- Mumbai:27 -- Kolkata:30 -- Chennai:143 - cases of rape for Mar - Aug 2003 in Indian metropoles: Delhi: 262 -- Mumbai: 40 -- Kolkata: 18 -- Chennai: 21 - officially recorded dowry deaths in major cities combined (Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai): 2002: 181 -- 2001: 121 - persons in jail waiting for trial: over 1 million (end of 2002) - conviction rate of court cases: around 1 percent (according to Prem Shankar Jha) - Haryana cost of buffalo: 18,000 - 24,000 Rs (approx 345 - 460 Euro) - Haryana cost of girl (human trafficking): 4000 Rs (approx 77 Euro) "Ignorance is bliss" was targeted towards you as you are the one who sleeps. Sakshi your words are a mockery on your state of mind which is not ready to listen ... you need an open mind to understand what I am writing here...because today from where I see it a gang that killed 26 people got arrested by the police....It turned out they thought people were dying in road accidents. Freak ... Stats Reference

Comment by Sakshi

Tue, 7 Nov 2006 06:03:03 EST

Null - Is there any point to ask for a reasonable discussion with someone named 'Null'? Na...I don't think so. As for my response towards Mohit, well it does annoy at times to see people who themselves offer nothing to the society but find take it as their birth-right to ridicule others (and the media) who atleast try to make an effort. It's sad that you and Mr. Mohit don't have the inclination or the human emotion to see the two unfortunate tragedies beyond it's mode of conduct. Agree there are many more such gruesome incidents that go un-noticed but that doesn't mean we stop looking at the ones that do grasp our attention. It's always one step at time...and not about turning a blind eye. But then again...no use discussing such issues with a nullified mind.

Comment by null

Tue, 7 Nov 2006 05:49:27 EST

Sakshi is annoyed and outraged...She has been blown by Mohit into a personal tussle...farther away form the topic in discussion. Mohit...You definitely have no idea what is a biased and crippled mind is...That is Sakshi's personal prerogative :) She knows best what it means to possess a crippled and biased mind. BTW, Sakshi... Priyadarshini was killed by strangulation in day one of the most common ways to murder.. Jesicca Lalls was killed by gun at night...a second common way to kill a person... I do not see anything common to them...except that both of them were females...is that the reason for your burst? You said they both were let down by system...but is that a criteria of commonalty?...in India where every other individual feels that (s)he has been let down by system... "Murdered by highly-connected individuals"...may be but from what I have heard many more murders in India have one or the other high profile persons behind it... The only thing common to the two that I see is that both were hyped and talked about by media in daylight.

Comment by Aaman

Tue, 7 Nov 2006 05:10:38 EST

Jethmalani plea in Jessica case dismissed: Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed an application by prime accused Manu Sharma seeking transfer of Jessica Lal murder case to another court saying that the hearing cannot be allowed to be derailed since a lot of argument had taken place.

Comment by Sakshi

Tue, 7 Nov 2006 04:38:34 EST

Mohit - Should I say that I totally dis-agree with you. Well, Yes I do - completely. Firstly you should re-frain from taunting me with a biased and crippled mind simply because you have no idea what that actually means. Kindly explain to me how is Priyadarshini Mattoo's killer different from Jesicca Lalls? They both were brutally murdered, they both were murdered by highly-connected individuals and they both were let down by the system. And what system are you talking about. If you have some logic left in you then you should be knowing better than it's people who make the system. Agree our society is plagued by evils and dark forces but that doesn't mean we stop working towards something that one truly believes in. Atleast I am using my energy..unlike you who believes in phrases like "Ignorance is a bliss". Thanks to individuals with attitude like yourself that today we are in such a mess...in the name of a civilized society. Pity...really pity on you.

Comment by Mohit

Tue, 7 Nov 2006 04:20:59 EST

should i say i totaly disagree with whatever you say... firstly you can not write with a crippled and biased mind such as yours is now. People typically try to find faults in the system, angry at the system they vent it at individuals in this case Manu Sharma. Whatever you frustrations might be you have got the audacity to compare him with matoo. How may i ask?? You have the energy to write an article on this boy and his lawyer but donot see that this is not even a needle compared to the real evils that plague our society. A country where people kill the child even before its born. Country having states where 40-50 murders is not sufficient and all you talk about is this one guy. Biased by the media vomit and the effect of cinema you become a sheep to follow whaever right wrong is decided by the media for you. Go ahead you can burry yurself coz as i say "Ignorance is a bliss"

Comment by Emma

Tue, 7 Nov 2006 02:59:45 EST

I can't help but wonder - if instead of Ram Jethmalani, some other Tom/Dick/Harry lawyer had taken on Manu Sharma's case, would the reaction of the people/media/nation been just the same? Yes, this is a high-profile case, hyped up even more by the fame/name of the lawyer handling it. But honestly, Manu Sharma is the accused and Ram Jethmalani is the lawyer - and every accused, in the eyes of the law, has the right to get the services of an advocate, any advocate. That is all there is to it. I do believe people and the media have done their bit in getting this case reopened; now, shouldn't we just let the lawyers and the courts do their bit in seeing that justice is done?

Comment by vijay

Tue, 7 Nov 2006 00:43:10 EST

you no what now that the justice has been reached i think all the pepole whohelped the rapist and the murderer to escape from the punishment for the first time should be made to bear the punishment as well with the one who committed it

Comment by Q Bit

Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:48:06 EST

Sakshi: Just like you are within your rights to criticize Ram Jethmalani, so is he within his rights to publicize his case and get a free ride in the press as much as he can (being a criminal lawyer and having a high profile client). You might think Manu Sharma is guilty. I think so too. (And probably everyone who knows a bit or two about the case). But we can't decide on the guilty verdict -- that's not how it works. Manu Sharma, like any other would get his day in the court. Jethmalani has done nothing wrong. He's just doing what he thinks would be in his client's interests--he has a high profile client and his business is to protect the interests of his client. Nothing more. Frankly, your question whether Jethmalani should be allowed to do this and that, doesn't make sense. I think you got a bit carried away there.

Comment by temporal

Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:06:28 EST

saks: in the end what matters most is justice should be meted out as someone pointed out recently in the desicritic emails the high profile media cases are mostly big-city centric this is not to demean any murder or rape btw jethmalani is a high profile lawyer and the cases he takes should not be held against him...(also he does his share of pro-bono cases too) some of the things he said and says are also media posturing the real case wold be fought in the court

Comment by Hardy

Sun, 5 Nov 2006 22:41:38 EST

Indian contituion holds Justice prime and higher than public opinion(outcry) which according to author's is the measure of democracy. Justice and a proper fair trial process should be the desired way to go forward. I do not think anybody in india when asked personally would prefer democracy over justice. Democracy is just a form of governance. Societies and civilizations have existed for better or for worse in absence of democracy. Justice is the way of life. Civilizations and empires have perished whenever justice has been challanged. Media speaks what people want to listen. And the sanity of indian democracy and people judgement can easily be measured from the comstitution and composition of our elected parliament. I like lacs of other indians, know about jasica Lall's case from what i have heard from media and i accept that my opinion may be biased and even flawed. I trust that law and justice has more breadth and better vision than a common indian has.Public opinion at best is average of what we all think. It is not necessarily additive as some of us may want to believe. I feel Media's role ought to be limited to unearthing issues than giving verdicts. Media's role in giving verdicts even before the case has been heard is a very bad precedent. In the end, I am gratified that Manu sharma is being prosecuted in our courts, but unhappy that he has already been convicted by media.

Comment by null

Sun, 5 Nov 2006 20:54:38 EST

Ram Jethmalani has taken up the case of Manu Sharma, alleged killer of Jessica Lal and has lashed out at media for declaring Manu Sharma guilty even before the Court's judgement. In fact, this is another instance of the media-hype! It is true that this murder-case is brought back to trial due to the public opinion raised by the media ---but at the same time we have to allow the due process of law to go on. Accused has the right to get the services of an advocate and it is for the court to spell out the verdict after considering all submissions of both sides and until that happens, we cannot be questioning the intermediate processes. If Ram Jethmalani has decides to take up the case of Manu Sharma, we cannot fault him since that is his job & his sole prerogative! Media is now unnecessarily trying to make an issue out of a simple non-issue! Media feel that he should not have taken up this case in view of the vast public opinion that thinks that Manu Sharma is guilty. However, the Court will not take into account the views of the people in the matter. Court goes by the evidence which is produced before it and the arguments of the lawyers. Now, even if Manu Sharma is guilty, he is entitled to defend himself through a lawyer and Mr.Ram Jethmalani is a lawyer who defends a for that matter any other lawyer to choose his client carefully and go by the public opinion. It is a lawyer's right to choose his client. It is true that rich and influential persons like Manu Sharma are in an advantageous position as they can hire best lawyers to defend themselves and go Scot free even if guilty while a poor man who is not guilty may not be able to escape punishment because his case is not likely to be defended by a competent lawyer. So, what is to be done in such case? The simple answer is that we should have elected judges and Jury system on the pattern of USA so that they could take the public opinion into account while deciding the case. To cut the scrap short, the question of not allowing Ram Jethmalani to contest election does not arise as desired by author. The Election laws does not have such options. Indian politics are based on Vote Bank Politics and power of vote is unknown to people. That's why Indian Parliament has 40% parliamentarians having tainted and criminal record.