Sunday, January 18, 2015

Lawyers do not need to please judges

A lawyer “should not agree” with a judge if he has a point to propose which is supported by “precedent or authority”, a Supreme Court judge said today even as he averred that there was no need to please judges.
Speaking at the award ceremony of the 11th K K Luthra Memorial Moot Court Competition here, Justice Dipak Misra also said that a lawyer can disagree with a judge if he has a valid point.
“You may not immediately disagree with a judge but there is a way to disagree with a judge. And a lawyer in all fairness, if he has a point to propose, and the point is supported by precedent or authority… He should not agree.
“There is no need to please judges,” Justice Misra, who was the chief guest at the programme, told law students.
He said that the language used in a court of law has to be “sober and have etiquette” and “this does not mean trying to please any kind of judge”.
“A judge who intends to be pleased, in fact, I have no hesitation in stating, possibly doesn’t have all the qualities for being a judge,” he added.
Stressing on the politeness of language and expression on the part of a lawyer, Justice Misra suggested that employing court craft and showing respect are different from pleasing a judge.
He said the point should be made politely, respectfully and put in a manner that attracts the attention of the judge.
Asking the budding advocates to follow the law of the land, he said that nowadays, certain people, instead of following the law, love to violate it.
“As a lawyer, you really have to try to stand for the law of the land in times to come,” he said.
National Institute of Juridical Sciences from West Bengal won this year’s moot court competition with Delhi University’s Campus Law Centre coming second.
The final round held at the India Habitat Centre here was judged by Justice Sanjay Karol of Himachal Pradesh High Court, Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva of Delhi High Court.

No comments:

Post a Comment