The Karnataka High Court in one of its recent order has made a case for fearless Advocacy and advised Adjudicatory Bodies to not to be too sensitive and appealed for a healthy environment for Advocates to put forth their agruments without getting intimidated.
In dealing with the plea of petitioner-advocate, the Court expunged adverse remarks made against him by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), and highlighted that Lawyers need a work atmosphere where they can argue fearlessly.
The single-Judge Bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit highlighted the importance of Advocacy as a profession in society:
"The legal profession is of vital importance not only to the administration of justice but also for the rule of law & good governance; lawyers are to the civil society what soldiers are to the frontiers of a nation; lawyers profession is the only profession constitutionally recognized; Marcus Tullius Cicero centuries ago called this profession as the ‘noble profession’; lawyers lend voice to the voiceless; they stand unfazed during social tumult; our Freedom Struggle was led by lawyers;
The Court mentioned how Constitution itself is a product of contribution of great legal minds and it is only Advocates that draw the chariot of law & justice.
"Our Constitution is the child of great legal brains; of course, others too have contributed a lot, cannot be denied; the great principles of governance and constitutional doctrines like the doctrine of Basic Structure are the contribution of tall lawyers; it is they who draw the chariot of law & justice; words fall short to extol the greatness of this profession."
It further observed on how better functioning of this profession could be sought:
"Advocacy is a distinguished profession affording full scope for the talents of the brightest intellect. A lawyer should be free to put forward creative & generic ideas concerning the case, unhindered & fearlessly, in the free trade of ideas, some "intellectual collisions" do unavoidably occur, they are like sparks of light and therefore are welcome, that facilitates the march of law whereby freedom of citizens broadens from 'precedent to precedent'".
Stating that Courts & Adjudicatory Authorities shouldn't be too sensitive, the Court remarked that they should give a greater leverage to the Counsel on feet in conducting their cases.
As per the plea, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was unhappy with the Petitioner-Advocate for his skewed understanding of the law.
To this regard, the Court noted that "intellectual collisions" are bound to occur during advocacy, and asked for space for innovation.
"Novel & innovative arguments come handy in removing the mask and seeing the true face of law & justice. Merely because the arguments of a lawyer are laced with novelty & innovation, at times that may not be to the liking of adjudicating authority, the judgments cannot be couched in unhappy words."
Advising that the judgments & orders should not be written with a pen dipped in acid, the Court added:
"In some occasions that are marked by their rarity, one may transcend the traditional contours of professional conduct. But this happens even with adjudicators as well; the ultimate object is to do justice to the cause; it hardly needs to be stated that the judgments & orders should not be written with a pen dipped in acid; after all 'acidity' affects health, the acidic words rob away the living beauty of the scripts."
Clarifying that this in no way is sanctioning to indiscipline & lawlessness in the adjudicatory process, the Court said that the horizons of due process of law gets widen by novelty & innovation of ideas and accordingly ordered that the impugned portion of the observations in the subject order need to be expunged in the best interest of both the stakeholders, i.e., Bar & the Bench.
Read Order Here:
Picture Source :
Sheetal Joon- Content Editor with LatestLaws
