Was Jethmalani's decision right?

    

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.

Other stories in the section:

After Vienna victory, it's time to face the nation

What does this deal mean for India and who will ultimately benefit from it?

• India N-powered: Vienna won, what next?

• NSA clears the air on China's role at NSG

Featured Blog

Rajdeep Sardesai

Tale of Two Azmis

Featured Slideshows

Related Headlines

powered by

• Jethmalani won't comment on verdict
• Try Manu in new court: Jethmalani
• Sikh man killed Jessica: Jethmalani

Keywords: Manu Sharma, Ram Jethmalani

However, Rohatgi did not agree with Jaiswal and stood by Jethmalani’s opinion on the case. "I entirely agree with him. It is for a lawyer to decide as to which case he will take. It is not anybody’s job to either influence that decision or go brouhaha and say that on TV. If a lawyer decides to do a case he must do it to the best of his ability. Every accused whether in a murder case, a case of terrorism, in a case of sedition or in a case of a crime against the nation, is entitled to the defence that he wants. He is entitled to pay and obtain the best lawyer he can afford," he said.

But Jaiswal seemed to be in no mood to buy the logic and said the outcry was anticipated. "Here is a girl who is shot dead in a party with hundred people around and the accused go away scot-free and that is what has incensed the common man. The common man is incensed because they all look up at Ram Jethmalani as somebody great. I anticipated this kind of outcry if he would take up that matter and start defending it. That is the only reason why I had talked to him and told him that he should not to do this. I am not trying to pressure anybody, as I am nobody’s conscience-keeper," she added.

But why this anger against the media? Why is this public posture against the media?

"These are two different issues. I have no issues against the media. I think a good, outspoken and fearless media is an important facet of democracy and freedom and speech, which is good. The media is entitled to say whatever they want but I don’t think that anybody in the media or a section of the public has the right to decide whether a particular gentleman is guilty or not guilty," Rohatgi said.

SC lawyer Mukul Rohatgi says there's no question of moral dilemmas.

Jaiswal wasn’t every hopeful of an early trial if that happened. "In case, the case does gets shifted, the hearing will have to start again. In fact, the public prosecuter will have to start all over again and God only knows when the case would come up," she said.

"A lawyer has no business to refuse if he wants to take up a case merely because the public thinks otherwise. In fact your sensors shows that 78 per cent people say that he should take up the case. Please also consider that this is a case of murder. It may be a very horrible murder but at the end of the day there are much larger crimes that are mentioned, crimes against the nations and so on. Do you think that in such cases people should not get a chance to get defended?" he added.

According to Congress spokesperson and a noted Public Prosecutor Abhishek Manu Singhvi "no criminal justice system can even begin to be effective unless the public prosecutor comes from the best lawyer of the land".