The opinion given by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, in the Supreme Court to Dow Chemicals in 2006, has raised questions about the dos and don'ts of the legal profession. The uproar is centred on the idea that Singhvi, also Congress spokesperson, should never have become professionally involved with Dow Chemicals, perceived as the villain of the piece ever since it acquired the erstwhile global behemoth, Union Carbide Corporation in 2001. Phrases such as "conflict of interest" have been floating loosely since news of the maligned legal opinion came out in the open. This controversy follows others of a similar character, from Ram Jethmalani's defence of Manu Sharma to fair trial rights for Ajmal Kasab. A popular Latin maxim lists the three precepts of the law to be — living honourably, injuring nobody, and rendering every man his due. It is the third precept that demands the presence of a lawyer, as spokesperson for the man who awaits his due. The lawyer is an unavoidable part of the process, and his duties are meant to bring fairness and transparency to it. An old quote says, "When a lawyer defends his client, he is simply fulfilling his duty, in obedience to the behests of an institution which rendered it just, as well as expedient, that he should be substituted for his client, whatever might be the thought of their morality. That was a question for the legislature, not for him." Viewed from this prism, a lawyer cannot be faulted for defending a person, however heinous his crime. It is ironical to see double standards from enlightened sections of society who take up cudgels on behalf of a Kasab under the banner "terrorists have rights" and then deride legal representation to a Dow Chemicals because they have killed "poor Bhopal victims", or mock a fair trial for an S.P.S. Rathore. Let us stop playing judge, and let the law and the lawyer, take their own course. Still, such a course can be one marred with blemishes and improprieties. This is where "conflict of interest" kicks in. The allegation against Singhvi is foundationally flawed as it attempts to draw linkages, unjustifiably, between his professional conduct and his political views. The conflict of interest rule is meant to safeguard the interests of the client, not that of society at large. Indeed, this is a multi-faceted principle with many ambiguities surrounding it, but Singhvi's conduct does not even fall within the ambiguous and hazy zone of this rule. Broadly, this rule prevents a lawyer from taking a brief on behalf of a party who is opposed to an existing client of his. The rationale is to prevent the lawyer from playing both actor and spectator in the same arena. The catch lies here — the arena has to be the same one. A lawyer may be an open advocate against the death sentence with membership in organisations devoted to this cause and yet, argue for death to the accused in his capacity as public prosecutor. This position does not shift because the lawyer in question is Singhvi and the client is Dow Chemicals. The conflict of interest rule finds expression in the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, Part VI, which enlists the duties of senior and other advocates. Importantly, mention is made of the rule of disclosure, which commands the lawyer to place all facts to the client as may influence the client's decision to engage him. This is important as it affirms the rationale for the "conflict of interest" rule, being protection of the client's interest. This is noted by the Supreme Court in its 1983 verdict in Chandra Shekhar Soni v. Bar Council of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1012, where the Court observes: "It is not in accordance with professional etiquette for an advocate while retained by one party to accept the brief of the other. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests except by express consent given by all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts." It is incorrect to apply a rule meant for this restricted purpose to equate the political and the professional spheres. It is trite to say legality is one thing and propriety quite another. Singhvi's act may be legal but is it proper? It is, because all that has been done is rendering an opinion on an issue of law, the issue being whether the acquirer will be held liable for the conduct of the acquired in the factual matrix of the Bhopal disaster and subsequent settlement. Merely stating there is no such liability under the existing legal regime doesn't affect the Congress party's professed commitment to render justice to the Bhopal victims. Ultimately, it is for the judiciary to take a view on this and Singhvi's opinion only guides the client, a guidance that may ultimately be proved wrong. If questions of morality are brought in where legal opinions are drafted, most would be incorrect in law!
