Shalin: I agree with you. The poison is undetectable only momentarily. And I am also sure that the government would have brainstormed the idea and probably knew better. But, I think they should give it a thought and not use the ’strategy’ consistently. May be on occassions such as the Kandahar one…

Ram P Sridhar: Every person, whether guilty or innocent has the right to a lawyer… coz in Indian law, you are innocent until proven guilty. So, the assumption with which the case starts is that every person is innocent. So, on technicality, you are right. Or may be we have to learn to think beyond. Ram Jethmalani wants to defend Manu Sharma only for one reason. Jethmalani feels that media would dismember Manu Sharma like vultures if he doesn’t get a fair trial (which everyone is entitled to). He also filed a suit against the TOI and argued to have the case fought inside the court rooms and not in the news papers. It is a different story that the court ruled it against him. The only problem I see is that since the court cases are pending for decades together. Hence, a significant per centage of the population are not inclined to fight. Now I understand what ‘Justice delayed is justice failed’ means. Keep commenting. Your views were quite perceptive!

There is a oath! It might not be as outwardly stated as the Hippocratic Oath in medicine, but it does exist. It is the same oath that anyone takes to become a valued member of society– a basic oath of humanity, equity and justice. Of course its not upheld by everyone all the time, but then neither is the Hippocratic Oath by doctors.

The question is what is ethical behaviour? Is it ethical to let a serial killer, a rapist, a petty thief to fend for themselves in the complicated mess that is the Indian judicial system? Yes, these people might have committed a wrong. But ethically, lawyers have the responsibility to defend their clients and do what is in their client’s best interest. Ideally, if a lawyer becomes aware that his client is guilty he would advise his client to take the ethical actions and turn himself him, plead guilty etc… If nothing else, an ethical lawyer would recuse himself. A lawyer after all, just as a doctor or anyone else, is an advocate and agent for his client. Breaking the sanctity of that relationship bears just as much consequence as fighting on behalf of a guilty client.

The question then becomes is he to keep this information to himself and fulfill this responsibility, trust, and confidentiality to his client or (as an ethical private citizen should do) reveal this inner knowledge. With all this said, there are obviously exceptions to everything…including this.

I disagree! Why do well connected people have a right to get away? Does the fact a person has the money to “buy” politicians or have powerful friends make any statement about the person’s innocense or guilt in a criminal matter? It’s another fact that well connected people do get away with crimes just because they are who the are. But this is no right. This is abuse of the system. Equity before the law is the right!

Of course they get away with things! And not just crime, with anything! A well placed beaurocrat contact in an office assures your work gets done. A well placed friend in a police station gets your obnoxious son off.

Everything is about contacts and favors and oneupmanship.