Why shall advocacy differ with judiciary under common law?
DV Rao Advocates-Hyderabad, (C
(Querist) 28 February 2012
This query is : Resolved
Either the Advocacy or the Judiciary must follow the law and obey the law.
Either Petitioner’s Advocate or the Defendant’s Advocate must follow the law for pray the relief. The rule of practice never says to pray for any relief against the law or to give support to the wrong doers. So, If we analyze the Judgement it shall be support the winning Advocate for maximum of 60% and the defendant Advocate for a minimum of 40%. Other wise it can create the opinion that the defendant Advocate either not following the law or he/she is supporting the wrong doers.
The Judiciary also must follow and obey the law for giving Judgments, Hence the Judiciary must frame the rules on the every petition like as PIL. If the defendant Advocate fail to get a relief of at least 40% according to his prayer, then the Judiciary award him/her with penalty. Because here law is common to all these.
Then, The qualitative legal service can be expected and legal service can reach the poor.The wrong doers also will fear to approach the Court.
Hence, The percentage of crime rate and corruption, Pendency can be controlled in our country.
Sincerely
DVRao,
Practicing Advocate,
Supreme Court of India
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 28 February 2012
I personally do agree with the views of DV Rao Sab. It is generally seen that the lawyers many times promote the wrong doers and even take their contract that nothing is going to happen against them they make their score equal by taking law in their own hands and similarly some judicial officers pronounce the judgment one sided as if the defeated party is totally at the wrong footing and has no care for law. sometimes the citations not produced by the winning party are found elaborated in its favour and against the defeating party. A balanced judgments are required to be pronounced and if the erring party do not secure even 40% marks/merits then the defeating party should be punished exemplary which shall become a lesson for whole society and it shall definitely reduce the burden over judiciary wherein more than 3.5 crore cases are waiting for the disposal since last many years.
Anirudh
(Expert) 28 February 2012
It is not clear whether it is a query or a view on the topic by Mr. D.V.Rao.
It does not appear to be a query therefore, it should not be in this section. At best, it can be in the Forum Section.
I think both these experts seem to go against the dictum, that it is not for the lawyer to judge as to who is correct or wrong. It is for the judiciary to do so. It is the job of the Lawyer to put forth the points from his client's perspective.
Further more, the idea of inflicting penalty on the losing party is quite laughable! When the judges are not infallible and prone to err, the idea to impose penalty on the party which has lost on the basis of the judgment delivered (the decision itself may be correct or wrong - none one can be really sure, though it may occupy the field for some time until reversed) seems to be far fetched. The suggestion is a perfect example of the cure being more worst than the disease itself!
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 28 February 2012
i agreed both view of friends. In particularly It is not for the lawyer and judge ,it is purely for the judiciary , most of the judgements are decided on the merits of grounds and situation and evidence what the produced before court that time.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 28 February 2012
Agreed with opinions provided.
However this place is meant for asking queries.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
