‘Vampire Bats’

1 Comment

The sun was scorching outside with temperature holding on to a stubborn 45 plus degrees. Inside the congested court room condition was worse still.  It was unbearably hot, sultry and noisy.  The roll calls that started in the morning seemed to stretch to eternity. Nothing could be worse than waiting for your turn in a court of law on a hot summer day.


However, not everyone in the crowd seemed to be sharing the same plight.  Lawyers, who formed the majority in terms of numbers, were not showing the slightest trace of uneasiness.  They were occupied in their own world and were hardly involved in the court process. Some were seen typing quick messages in their mobile phones, concealed under the desk while others were seen whispering something into his neighbor’s ears.


As and when their numbers are called, they wake up from deep slumber to utter something that’s hardly audible even to the lawyer seated next. Surprisingly, the presiding officer seemed to understand what exactly the lawyer murmured and starts to scribble something on his pad.  Perhaps not because he has an unusually sharp pair of ears, but because the lawyer’s body language clearly showed that he was not prepared and therefore was simply seeking an extension of time.


It was an unusually long wait for my turn and finally when my number was called, I was fully exhausted.  Case adjourned.  Damn it, all this wait only to know that my case has been adjourned for another day.  So I have to put myself through this ordeal yet again another day.


Anyhow, it was big relief stepping out of the courtroom.  I breathed a big sigh of relief.


It was lunch break and the lawyers were scattered all over the court premises. Few were moving towards the canteen, while a few others were seen getting on to their vehicles to go elsewhere.  It was however amusing to note that many of the lawyers who stuffed themselves in these gas chambers possessed some of the best luxury cars in the town. These lawyers were surely earning handsomely compared their counterparts in other professions.


It is undoubtedly the lawyers who are the first to rush in when there is any social crisis.  But why then are they remaining mute and helpless when they are forced to wear such highly inconvenient and ugly attire in the name of professional uniform?


The bad stench that emanates from these filthy gowns is beyond tolerance and a punishment in itself.  It’s not an ordeal just for the lawyer wearing it but for every hapless client who have to bear it the whole day without a word of complaint.


Finding similarity with their European counterparts is no justification because this attire perfectly suits their extremely cool climatic conditions. We should be more practical taking into account the climatic conditions prevalent here rather than blindly mimicking these westerners.


As far as my understanding goes, it is not compulsory for lawyers to wear the outer ‘gown’ except while appearing in the Supreme Court or High Courts.  But strangely, our lawyers are seen burying themselves in their gowns even when they appear before the munsiff or magistrate courts.


Getting rid of this attire is surely not a big task for the lawyer community.  But still it prevails because most of the lawyers themselves fancy sporting these ugly gowns which ‘distinguishes’ themselves from the ‘morons’ outside.


Whatever be the justification, still continuing with this attire is nothing less than stupidity.  If remaining ‘conspicuous’ is what matters, why not design another costume that is more ‘unique’, convenient, sober and aesthetic than the present one?


Sorry to say, but you people look more like ‘vampire bats’ than professionals in this horrible attire.



Leave a comment

A brilliant judgment from the Allahabad High Court…. truly a landmark..


“A married woman as a housewife and mother usually puts in more hours of work for the family than the earning members of the family and their contribution should not be considered any less” observed the High Court while dismissing an appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. 


The contention of the insurance company was that since the dead woman was ‘just’ a home maker with no income, none of the claimants could be described as ‘dependants’ to receive compensation.  


The Division Bench of Justice Sunil Ambwai and Justice AN Mithal found no merit in this contention and observed that the work of a homemaker should be assigned value in terms of money taking into account her services and contributions to the family.  The notional income of Rs 30,000 per month suggested in Sarala Verma’s case (Rs.1,000 per day in the year 2009) for calculating the income of a person whose employment was not proved by any reliable evidence will be equally-applicable to married women homemakers. 

Corrupt Thomas as CVC?? asks S.C

Leave a comment

The Supreme Court on Monday directed UPA government to produce file pertaining to the appointment of former telecom secretary PJ Thomas as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner.

This directive came in response to a Public Interest Litigation filed by an individual expressing doubts over the eligibility of Shri Thomas.  Only a ‘bureaucrat with impeccable track record’ would be eligible for CVC post.  However, Shri Thomas was not having an impeccable track record as he was once chargesheeted in the palmolein import scam.


Leading lawyer Prashant Bhushan who represented the applicant also alleged that as telecom secretary, Shri Thomas had tried to prevent the CAG from probing the 2G scam.  He had questioned CVC’s right to look into the 2G spectrum scam and his appointment as CVC would affect an independent probe. Thomas had also allegedly pressed for promotion of corrupt top BSNL/MTNL officers while holding the post of telecom secretary.

Supreme Court guidelines pertaining to appointment of CVC stipulates that the appointment of CVC should be made from a panel of three outstanding bureaucrats of impeccable integrity.  Also, the precedent of unanimity between the PM, home minister and Leader of the Opposition which is followed in appointment of CVC was not followed in this case.



Really nice to find the Supreme Court take a pro-active approach especially when it comes to the issue of corruption.

IPC Sec.309

Leave a comment


Strange it would seem on the outset, but this is the sum and substance of Section 309 of Indian Penal  Code.  Sec.309 deals with punishment for ‘attempt to commit’ suicide.   You attempt suicide and if you succeed then you get away with that.  But if you fail in your attempt, then you  are done for.  The legal machinery will take you  to task.


Though it appears strange, this section deals with a very important subject matter i.e the ‘right to die’.   Does the right to die constitute a part of the fundamental right defined under Art.21 of the Indian Constitution??


This issue was debated in detail and finally the Supreme Court pronounced that Right to Die is not a fundamental right and cannot be equated to the Right to Live defined in Art.21.


Andhra Pradesh High Court held that section 309 IPC does not violate Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.  However in 1996, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court held that attempted suicide is an offence and section 309 IPC remains valid.


Another important issue also is closely connected with  this judgement, i.e about euthanasia (mercy killing).  Euthanasia though deals with an altogether different matter because it involves not self killing, but assisted killing.


But the pros and cons of legalizing suicide or euthanasia are many and both sides have strong reasons to stick on to their view point.


The issue  of mercy killing has come up before the judiciary on many occasions.  However, it was in Aruna Shanbaug’s case that the Supreme Court admitted a plea to end life on humanitarian consideration.


Supreme Court admitted a petition filed by journalist Pinki Virani seeking an end to the miserable life of Aruna Shanbaug.   Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse in Mumbai (Bombay), has been paralysed and considered “brain-dead” since she was attacked by a rapist in November 1973.  She has been leading a ‘vegetable existence’ for over 37 years devoid  of any human dignity whatsover.


The Supreme Court has sought detailed medical reports from the hospital and Maharashtra government.


Whatever be  the outcome of the  judgement, it would have a significant bearing on the definition of the Right to Live.


Judicially In’Sen’sitive!

1 Comment

Yet again, another blot on the face of Indian Judiciary.

This time, it is the Calcutta High Court Judge Soumitra Sen who has polluted the sanctity of the Indian Judicial System.

A Judicial Committee has been set up by Vice-President & Chairman, Rajya Sabha Shri Hamid Ansari to look into the charges of misappropriation and false declarations against Shri Soumitra Sen.  This might eventually lead to impeachment proceedings against him.

Shri Sen is accused of charges under Art.124(4) read with proviso (b) to Art 217(1) of Constitution of India.  Constitution holds that a judge of a High Court shall not be removed from his office except on the grounds of’ proved misbehaviour’.  Supreme Court Judge B Sudershan Reddy, said the charges of” misappropriation were “duly proved” and this settles the matter.

Hitherto, the citizens had only the judiciary to lean upon since the legislative and executive machinery of this country are in corrupt hands.  With more of people like Sen holding crucial judicial positions, people of this country can hardly expect justice to be delivered.

Lawyer Jokes

1 Comment

Q: What’s the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer?

A:  Bad lawyer can let a case drag out for several years. A good lawyer can make it last even longer.


Q. Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, an honest lawyer and an old drunk are walking down the street together when they simultaneously spot a hundred dollar bill. Who gets it?

A. The old drunk, of course, the other three are mythological creatures.


Q. How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?

A. His lips are moving.


Q. How does an attorney sleep?

A. First he lies on one side, and then on the other.


Q. How do you get a group of lawyers to smile for a picture?

A. Say “Fees!”


Q. What do you call a lawyer gone bad?

A. “Your honor.”


Q. Why do they bury lawyers twelve feet deep?

A. Because deep down, they are really good guys.


Q. Why won’t sharks attack lawyers?

A. Professional courtesy.


Q. What do you have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand?

A. Shortage of sand.


Q. Do you know how to save a drowning lawyer?

A. Take your foot off his head.


Q. Where can you find a good lawyer?

A. In the cemetary.


Q. What’s the difference between a lawyer and a boxing referee?

A. Boxing referee doesn’t get paid extra for a longer fight.


Did you hear about the group of terrorists that hijacked a plane full of lawyers?  They called down to ground control with their list of demands, threatening that if their demands weren’t met, they would release one lawyer every hour.


It was so cold last winter that I saw a lawyer walking down the street with his hands in his own pockets.


The trouble with the legal profession is that 98% of its members give the rest a bad name.


There are two kinds of lawyers — those who know the law and those who know the judge.



Ayodhya Title Suit

Leave a comment

It was an awful long wait for the Hindus to see light at the end of the tunnel in the Ayodhya Shri Ram Janmabhoomi title suit. Finally in the end when the verdict was pronounced, it came as a rude shock for the entire Hindu population.

The court was convinced that the so called ‘masjid’ was built by some muslim fanatic after pulling down the Ram temple at Ram Janmabhomi. This fact was proved beyond a shadow of doubt based on historical & archeological evidences.

The title of the property is clearly belonging to the Hindus. No doubt and the court was very loud on this aspect too.

But then the court too seems to have got carried away by the secular tune that plays everywhere. They were magnanimous to part with one third of the disputed land to the Muslims as a token of brotherhood.

But it is unfortunate that the court did not bother to find out what sort of brotherhood can be expected from the muslims who enjoys sharpening their daggers at a Hindus throat. Had they any feeling of brotherhood then they surely would have withdrawn from the issue and helped Hindus make a great temple of Ram there. But they are not and cannot ever evolve such a magnanimous mindset.

Had the title suit been ruled in favour of the muslims, then surely the court would have also ordered immediate removal of the makeshift temple there and ordered building of a magnificent mosque there at government expense.

All this tolerance and charity just because we are Hindus..

But should the court too take our tolerance for granted??? Think about it friends.