SHOULD ADVOCACY BE A PUBLIC SERVICE ?

 

Well my friend I think you are not aware about the facts.

Government of India does provide legal services to the people up to certain extent.

There is a legal committee, a practicing advocate is appointed, and he looks after the case of certain classes of people who cannot afford advocate fees.

It is on the line with the requirement of general public and there is a simple procedure for getting legal aid from legal aid committee members.

 

well in other comments it is not feasible, if you need better advocate you need to pay him, Govt. has done what is required. Advocate is allowed to appear before court only on their clients request with proper format signed. You should also remember before fighting for public rights that advocate is also one of the public and he also have to meet with family requirements. so please dont try to formulate new world, if you want advocate fees to be paid by Govt. of certain classes of people Govt. is already doing that, and i suppose Govt. has taken sufficient steps, by regulating lok adalat. my friend you just first go to the place and find out the facts. then have your ideas

 

Dear Mr. Gagdani, I am thankful to you for responding.  I am well aware of all these things and practical scenario.  I am happy that you are here with us to discuss.  Let us what others say.  Right here up to now I am confident with my view point.

 

Best regards...

MR RAM IS CORRECT.

IT SHOULD BE.

AT PRESENT IT IS AVAILABLE FOR INDIGENT PERSON, NOT FOR ALL..

MR RAM WANTS TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR ALL.

I ALSO FEEL THAT ADVOCATE FEES FOR  PIL SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE GOVERNMENT IF IT SUCCEEDES.

look you cannot judge all things in success and failure. what if somebody says, if you dont work out the work of tendor and if we dont get tendor you will not be paid. so, about hings you just dont no just for your favour you cannot disrupt earnings of others.

(DRF THOUGHT)

Isn’t it?

 

JUSTICE IS THE PRINCIPLE DEMOCRATIC RIGHT

 

DEMOCRACY MEANS - EQUAL JUSTICE

 

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY - MEANS DEMOCRACY

 

What is going on in practice ??

 

WHO CAN PAY THE FEES AND CAN BEAR THE EXPENSES

THEY CAN ONLY HAVE OPPORTUNITY

 

IS DEMOCRACY IMPLEMENTED ?????????????????????????????

mr gagdani,

it is not that advocate will not be paid, there fees should be borne by government.

this will makes the government; judiciary & the parties more responsible and the workload will be less.

 

Or it can also be done;

 

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/CIBIL-Like-Data-of-Advocates-24227.asp

sure it sud b a public service as detailed

Originally posted by :Ram Samudre - DRF
"	SHOULD ADVOCACY BE A PUBLIC SERVICE ?   In the cases which are filed by the Government it should be the responsibility of the Government to provide legal aid / service to all against whom it has filed the cases.    In the cases wherein the Government is not a party the responsibility to provide defence Lawyer / Advocate to the opposition should be lied upon the claimant and finally upon the looser.   BUT, the Advocate / Legal aid should be provided by the Government.   The Advocates / Lawyer should be under PUBLIC SERVICE registered with the Government on the basis of some PAYMENT OF WAGES REGULATION alike.   The citizens should apply to Government to provide an Advocate / Legal Aid and accordingly should deposit the wages to the Government and the Advocate / Lawyer should be paid by the Government.    NO DIRECT TRANSACTION SHOULD BE BETWEEN ADVOCATE / LAWYER AS THE PUBLIC SERVANT.  NO PRIVATE ADVOCATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED OFFICIALLY TO BE APPEAR BEFORE COURT.   ONLY, In the Business Matters the Private Advocate should be allowed, however, there should be some regulation for transactions through public service.   PAYER SHOULD BE THE MASTER AND SERVER SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE LEGALLY.	"

 

Just appropriate suggestion.  Surprise why it is not done yet.  It will restrict injustice and exploitation of innocent people and will protect from complicated justice system for which the people have to pay unjustified money & peace (freedom) and unnecessary wastage of valuable time to go around courts and advocates.  It is the duty of Government to provide protection to people from any kind of threat and it is a kind of threat of legal system.  Everyone knows that most of the notices issued by the advocates to give threat but people do not go ahead in courts against such threats as for which they will have to go again to any advocate.  So it should be protected by the Government.

Where   Government   is    not    a   party    to   the    case   &     a   case   has   been     registered   against      a   Public   Officer.......Whether     the   Government       Public      Prosecutor      can    file   Vaklatanama      for   the   Public   Officer   or    not??

                                                If     not.....Is   there   any    citations/Judgment   of   any   COURT   of     INDIA??

 

                                               If    Yes.....Is   there    any     Citations/Judgments     of   any     COURT    of   INDIA??

 

                                                 I   request     all    the    Learned    LCI     Friends     to     submit     Citations    here.

Originally posted by :Arup
"	MR RAM IS CORRECT. IT SHOULD BE. AT PRESENT IT IS AVAILABLE FOR INDIGENT PERSON, NOT FOR ALL.. MR RAM WANTS TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR ALL. I ALSO FEEL THAT ADVOCATE FEES FOR  PIL SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE GOVERNMENT IF IT SUCCEEDES.	"

entirely correct. with condition that if PIL accepted

In the field of health and education so many missionaries and charitable trusts are making significant contribution. Also private hospitals too are required to run free OPD and some free treatment.

 Unlike the above in the law field (which is most important, since growing lawlessness is affecting our GDP as well as healthy national thought and feeling)no such services are available and is least attended, and as regard to the legal aid available at the various district courts, HCs and Hon SC have almost no takers, the reason is best known to us.

 Also if anyone has the list of NGOs, which are engaged in to or running free legal services, then plz. Provide some information.

Once CM of Bengal asked RK Mission to open some Medical Colleges and Hospitals, and assured them to provide all kind support like land, building, equipments etc. The spokesman of RK Mission told to the CM that, unless we get a pool of Monk Doctors and other paramedical staffs, we are not in a position to open any further Medical Colleges and Hospitals.

So, this rule applies here at law field also, unless we get some nationalist quality monk advocates, and other legal staffs our mission of justice to all will remain uncompleted.  Since too much professionalism is taking toll on humanity and ethics/morality.

Our aim should be rather must be “Justice at the door step”. Since, anyone opt out or do not want to fight for his right due to harassment, delay or lack of money or due to any other reason, then the essence / theme or purpose/intent of law/judiciary gets defeated.

PS: I am open to suggestion/correction, if anyone having better idea/thought, then plz. Enlighten us; your effort will be appreciable.

The aim or goal of any educational qualification should be sensitization (Nation building) apart from the career building. The effect of too much Professionalism has been described by Apex Court in a Judgment, plz. Go thru the news below,

 

Poacher Sansar Chand faces Supreme court's wrath

New Delhi, Oct 4: The Supreme Court today slammed notorious poacher Sansar Chand for killing tigers, leopards and other endangered species for commercial gains and said the day was not far when human skin would also be traded.

Reserving its verdict on a petition by Sansar Chand challenging his conviction by a trial court in Rajasthan's Ajmer city in a poaching case, the apex court bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice T.S. Thakur said the day was not far when human skins would also be traded for commercial gains.

In a strong indictment of Sansar Chand's poaching activities, the court said: "The population of tigers and leopards was declining because you (Sansar Chand) are trading in skins of tigers and leopards. There is no tiger left in Sariska (Tiger Reserve)."

"For your appetite for more money, tomorrow you will even sell human skins," the court chided the petitioner.

The court rejected the contention of counsel for the petitioner, Siddhartha Luthra, that his client was not involved in poaching.

He said that if his client was involved in poaching then how was it possible that even after his arrest poaching was going on.

Unimpressed by Luthra's plea, the court said: "You are all interested in money. You want only money. Everything in the country is commercial. Today people sell the skin of tigers and leopards, tomorrow they would sell human skin also."

Sansar Chand has moved the apex court challenging his conviction in a case involving the smuggling of parts of tiger and leopard bodies in Rajasthan in 2003. Sansar Chand is undergoing a five-year jail term.

It may be recalled that in 2006, Sansar Chand had admitted to selling 470 tiger skins and 130 leopard skins to customers in Nepal and Tibet. He made this confession before the Central Bureau of Investigation. (IANS)

 

Source/Link:

https://headlinesindia.mapsofindia.com/judiciary/supreme-court/poacher-sansar-chand-faces-supreme-courts-wrath-64800.html