[ad_1]
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court has been liberal whereas adjudicating issues associated to private liberty and that’s the means it must be, Justice (retired) Madan B Lokur stated on Friday.
He stated the writ of habeas corpus is vital and must be issued liberally as a result of if you end up speaking about preventive detention, you’re speaking about placing an individual with no trial. A writ of habeas corpus is filed in case an individual is confined in an alleged unlawful or illegal detention.
Speaking at a webinar titled ‘Defending Liberties’, hosted by the Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum and Women in Criminal Law Association, he additionally supported the thought of day-to-day trials below particular acts and cautioned ideology coming in the best way of authorized occupation.
“In the past, you would find very few cases where a person has not been given relief under a writ of habeas corpus. Courts have even said that even when a petition for habeas corpus has been dismissed, another can be filed. So, it is not as if that once the writ petition is dismissed, that is the end of the road,” he stated.
Justice (retd) Lokur stated the Supreme Court has been liberal on habeas corpus petitions, and that is the best way it must be and added that the highest courtroom has even stated that an individual doesn’t need to file a petition and it may well even be a postcard.
Justice Lokur recalled that when he was serving at Gauhati, he even entertained an SMS alleging unlawful detention in jail as a habeas corpus.
In the Webinar, hosted by legislation portal Bar & Bench, Justice Lokur was interacting with advocates Tara Narula, Shalini Gera, Sowjhanya Sukumaran and Warisha Farasat.
On a query, whether or not it was potential to include the necessity for day-to-day trials in circumstances below particular acts (like Prevention of Corruption Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act) the place the detention interval is longer, he replied in affirmative and stated “Yeah, it must be done” and added, nonetheless, there could also be sensible difficulties.
Advocate Narula posed a query on media trial and referred to actor Sushan Singh Rajput”s demise case and the way WhatsApp chats had been put within the public area.
“How do we tread the line? Do we fight fire with fire?,” she requested.
To this, Justice Lokur stated there are two solutions to it.
“First, is to fight fire with water. Ask the court why is this happening? Why are WhatsApp messages etc. coming to the public domain?
“If the courtroom does nothing, then possibly combat fireplace with fireplace. But first, go to the courtroom. Even within the Sushant Singh Rajput case, the place did the WhatsApp messages come from? Must be from prosecuting businesses or another person,” he said, adding that the court is bound to ensure a fair trial. If not, maybe fight fire with fire.
Advocate Sukumaran said the term ‘activist Lawyers” is often used as an insult and scathing remarks are made by judges in court and even orders are written trying to cast aspersion on why a particular lawyer would take a particular case and that this becomes particularly difficult for women lawyers.
She added that some people opine that you can either be a lawyer or and an activist and not both and asked what can be done to overcome this problem.
Advocate Farasat also said that this is a worrying trend in the last two or so years and said that ideology must be put aside and the Bar must come to support.
Justice Lokur said “By and huge, ideology shouldn’t are available in the best way of your skilled task. If it does, it means you aren’t going to defend somebody who doesn’t share your ideology. Ideology and the occupation must be stored aside.
“There may be instances where you might find where it is better to sacrifice…for the sake of maintaining ideology, that should happen on very, very rare occasions,” he stated.
On the purpose of remarks being made by some judges criticising attorneys, he stated that it is rather unfair to focus on a lawyer on the bottom of ideology or as a result of the advocate is showing for a specific type of shopper.
Advocate Gera stated she was of the view that there was a quantum shift in the best way the state is treating attorneys who’re defending dissidents. People are getting targetted as ‘jihadi attorneys” and ‘naxalite attorneys”, she stated.
On the query that if Justice Lokur thinks that it’s completely different for the best way ladies and men are handled within the Bar?, he stated when he began the profession, there have been only a few ladies attorneys.
“They were tolerated if you understand what I mean. But over the years, from the 1970s, the women lawyers have increased. The number of women judges have increased. 1978 was when the first woman lawyer was appointed judge
“There undoubtedly has been a shift. Whether they’ve been discriminated, I don”t know. In the Supreme Court, I don”t suppose there was discrimination. I’ve been out of contact on the Delhi High Court, I might be very shocked if somebody says there may be discrimination,” he stated.
[ad_2]
Source hyperlink