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.

Featured Blog

Rajdeep Sardesai

Television, for politicians with a vision

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

Jaiswal added, "True, ultimately when it's an appeal against the state of the order of the acquittal of the accused, public prosecutor really has an uphill task, in this case it’s Ram Jethmalani."

Do criminal lawyers have no moral dilemmas?
While Jethmalani categorically denied having any moral restrictions in taking up Manu Sharma’s case, Rohatgi was of similar opinion.

"I don’t think there’s any question of any moral dilemma. A lawyer must appear for the client if the client wants him for defence. That’s the ethics by which we are governed and that’s how we should take up the cases," he said.

Rohatgi went on to argue that neither public nor media has the right to decide whether a public person is guilty or not.

"There is no doubt that this is a horrendous murder and has shaken the confidence of the public in the police and the judicial system. But no one knows for sure unless the final court decides who’s guilty. This gives an impression that public or media has decided that Manu Sharma is guilty," he said.

However, Jaiswal – who has been against Jethmalani’s decision – disagreed.

"It’s all very well to say that it’s a lawyers’ duty to take up a case when it comes to him. But how is that the Bar Association has passed resolutions in the past stating that that no lawyer will defend certain cases – like, for example, the Jammu and Kashmir sex scandal?" she asked.

However, Rohatgi countered by saying that the resolution, in itself, was immoral. "Because of a resolution that was totally wrong, immoral and illegal that a petition was moved in the Supreme Court by the accused and the trial was shifted out of J&K court to Chandigarh court where all kinds of lawyers are appearing. How can we have a system where all lawyers decide that they won’t take up a particular case?"

At the end of the show, while Jaiswal remained of the opinion that Jethamalani’s decision had disillusioned her, Rohatgi remained steadfast and said that media and public trial of cases must stop.

Results of the SMS poll:
Should Jethmalani have taken up Manu Sharma’s case?

Yes: 80 per cent
No: 20 per cent