Inadmissible Offence, Your Honour!

Lawyers and judges live cheek by jowl. Yet their language remains different. For example, if you were to give an orange to somebody, you would say: “I give you this orange”. But when the transaction is to be entrusted to a lawyer, he puts down:

Written by

AUSAF

Published on

Lawyers and judges live cheek by jowl. Yet their language remains different. For example, if you were to give an orange to somebody, you would say: “I give you this orange”. But when the transaction is to be entrusted to a lawyer, he puts down:
“I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate, interests and rights to the claim and advantages of and in the said orange, together with all its rind, juice and pulp and all rights and advantages with full power to bite, cut and otherwise eat the same or give the same away, with and without the rind, skin, juice or pulp, anything before or hereinafter or in any other deed, or deeds, instruments of whatever nature or kind whatsoever to the contrary in any way notwithstanding.”
Then a couple of smart young lawyers come and take the orange away from you.
The language of judges is elegant instead of being technically foolproof. For example, Mr. Justice V.B. Gupta, while passing strictures against an Additional Sessions Judge for not following the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code for pronouncing an accused a proclaimed offender, and ordering his attachment of property remarked: “Prima facie it appears that the trial court was not at ease with the order passed by the High Court and the observations made by it are uncalled for, as they cast aspersions on the functioning of the Court. “ It appears that the trial court was in undue haste and was bent upon to declare the petitioner a proclaimed offender, without following the due process of law,” Mr. Justice Gupta did not stop at that. He advised the Judge, Mr. R.K Tiwari to go for a refresher course at the Delhi Judicial Academy. And the Academy Director was instructed to submit a performance report after completion of the refresher course by the judge, who had, perhaps inadvertently committed “Judicial Indiscipline.”
The sphere of judicial indiscipline is, probably confined to juvenile judges. A few years back, a sufferer from Rajasthan, Mr. Chunni Lal Jatav, quite famously and publicly said: “All the judges of the Supreme Court do not have the power of a single police constable. The judges can not re-write the laws and have to listen to the learned lawyers of both sides. A constable here simply makes his own laws. He can do almost anything.”
It goes without saying Mr Jatav was a survivor of Kumhar Massacre. He was not hauled up for “lowering the dignity of the Supreme Court,” as was recently seen in the case of four journalists, having been awarded four months imprisonment for reporting that the sons of Mr. Justice Y.K Sabharwal (retd) benefited from the sealing of commercial establishments in New Delhi and one of his sons operated for some time from his official residence.
The issue was so serious that two former Chief Justices of the highest palladium of justice felt compelled to demand the entire tenure of 18 month of Justice Sabharwal as the apex-court chief should be looked into to ensure the “faith of the common man in judiciary “.
But there are some hilarious cases in which the contempt of court bogey can not be raised as was done in this case. See:
Judge: “Did you see that shot being fired?”
Witness: “I only heard it.”
Judge: “This is pure hearsay and inadmissible evidence.”
As the witness left the stand, he laughed loudly.
At once the judge called him back and was about to run him for contempt of court, when the witness said, Did you see me laugh?”
Judge: “No, but I heard you.”
Witness: “That is inadmissible evidence, your Honour.”