Font Size 
Was Jethmalani's decision right?
Published on Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 10:47, Updated at Sat, Nov 04, 2006 in 
Tags: 
DEVIL'S ADVOCATE? |
 Jethmalani has defended the killers of former prime minister Indira Gandhi. |
| He was also the defence lawyer of market scamsters like Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh. |
| He also fought, free of cost, the cases of the prime accused in the 2001 Parliament attack case Mohammed Afzal, Shaukat Hussain Guru and the Delhi University lecturer, S A R Geelani, who were awarded the death sentence. |
| He was also the defence lawyer of the Hinduja Brothers in the Bofors case. |
People who read this also read:
What Bina Ramani told Delhi HC
Bina Ramani remained steadfast on her stand and told the court that she saw Manu shoot Jessica.
Who the hell is the Press to decide who is indefensible? Please don’t talk of this bullshit to me.
— Ram Jethmalani
New Delhi: He stunned many with his decision to play the 'devil's advocate' in the high-profile Jessica Lall murder case. But senior criminal lawyer and former law minister Ram Jethmalani remains steadfast about his decision to defend Manu Sharma, the main accused in the case. A livid Jethmalani told CNN-IBN the media is carrying out a "malicious campaign" against Manu Sharma, who he says enjoys as much right as anybody else to be defended in the court of law.
Jethmalani - who had also defended the main accused in Parliament attack case, Afzal Afsan Guru who was awarded the death penalty last month - had decided that he would not take up cases unless they were in greater public interest or national issues. So, should a lawyer of Jethmalani's stature have taken up the Jessica Lall case, choosing to defend the prime accused Manu Sharma?
That was the topic of discussion on CNN-IBN show Face the Nation with senior editor Sagarika Ghose. Among the panelists were senior Supreme Court lawyers Kamini Jaiswal and Mukul Rohatgi.
|
Jaiswal had earlier expressed displeasure at Jethmalani’s decision and had conveyed the same to him. However, she remained guarded about expressing her disillusionment. "The fact that I am sitting here in the television room answering the question is what I had anticipated, and this is what I did not want to happen. If any other senior lawyer had taken it then I wouldn’t have been sitting here," she said.
Jaiswal said that there was no reason for a lawyer of Jethmalani’s stature to take up the case that had attracted much public wrath. "I didn’t confront him. I requested him as a friend telling him 'this is what is going to happen, don’t do it as there is no need'. There are so many lawyers and I am not denying that the accused has the right to have the best lawyer. But a lawyer who has decided that he is not going to take any matters except what is in greater public interest or national issues, why should a matter like this, especially where the public perception is that there has been a travesty of justice," she said.
More Headlines from Nation
| Related links: | |
Total Comments: 195
Read Comment | Post Comment
Press Freedom is most important> But after seeing some (most) of the interviews, I feel some are taking this freedom
Read Comment
The Court will not take into account the views of the people in the matter. Court goes by the evidence
Read Comment
If lawyers like jethmalani start defending people like manu sharma then next time nobody will have a fear before killing
Read Comment
I fully agree with you. Ram wants MONEY ONLY MONEY. WHY DOESN'T HE TAKE CASES OF THE POOR. SO MANY
Read Comment
frankly speaking I myself am slightly biased against Manu sharma. I think the media did a good job to bring
Read Comment