Sir,
intermediation is a part of our Indian culture. Sometimes, people want
an intermediary between them and whoever they are dealing with. It is a
normal part of our culture. We also have intermediation in marriage alliances.
Sometimes, in rural areas and in other parts of the country, people need
intermediation even to reach out to people in authority and
power. We know that there is intermediation even in political parties.
By and large, we welcome this Bill. Let me be very clear about that.
Sir, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. This is what Martin
Luther King100 said. The right
to seek justice is a fundamental right to our existence as a civil
society. But because of120 the
asymmetry in our society, in terms of education, access to people
in authority, wealth, etc., an average person sometimes does not know how
to navigate through the legal system. This is what is being exploited,
and some people step in as touts to tell them who to engage and also tell them
that if you engage this lawyer, this will work. It is because of this asymmetry
and the complexity of dealing with our legal system that touts thrive200 in the system. In fact, there is a funny
joke which I would like to say, and I hope that the lawyers do not get
offended. As I myself am a lawyer, my parents are lawyers, and I come from240 a family of lawyers, I say this with
full responsibility. The joke is that good lawyers know the law but great
lawyers know the Judge. So, when that is the system, when an uneducated
person has to come to court, it is quite natural that somebody has to
intercede to help them navigate and connect with a right lawyer. This300 is what is happening everywhere. Because
of this, many people flourish. Sir, my only quibble with this Bill
is that it is only targeting the touts in small courts. In fact, in
Tamil Nadu, there is a person whose name I do not want to mention but
anybody from the legal fraternity in Tamil Nadu will completely know who
I360 am referring to. Let us
call him ‘Judicial X’. His speciality is to take temple prasad to every
single Judge and to be photographed.
People
say he can get the matter listed before a particular judge. Now the rumour is400 that he can even appoint judges
to the court. In fact, I would urge the Government to focus on these big fish
instead of the small touts who are all operating only in the smaller courts. I
agree there is a nexus between the touts and the lawyers, which must
be broken. There is a nexus among the touts, the lawyers and the court
staff because that is how the matters will come. Otherwise, the matters would
not get listed.480 The worst
is the nexus among the tout, the lawyer, the court staff and the judge. This
definitely must go.500 So, we
welcome this Bill. This Bill must make all efforts to break this nexus,
penalise and punish people who are interfering in the justice system. But the
only fear I have is that this might be misused also. I am not going to
particularly blame this Government. This Government is very famous for
weaponizing the law. We all know what they have done with the ED. We all
know what they have done with the PMLA. There, the original purpose of
the law is something different but they completely misused it, weaponised it,
and targeted people. They should not600
use this law and debar somebody who is a public interest litigant or who
is an anti-establishment figure in the lower courts by branding him as a
tout and disenfranchise him because a lawyer can also be a tout.
So, by and large, we definitely welcome this Bill but they should not
use this as a weapon to disenfranchise and to debar legitimate
anti-establishment lawyers in the lower courts. They must really focus on these
big fish like the ‘Judicial X’ whom I have named. They must really target them
and use this law to go after them, and not700
go after others. So, by and large, we welcome the Bill. We welcome the
amendments you have brought about. But720
I hope you apply it fairly, implement it without any kind of discrimination,
and it is not used in a weaponised manner in which you normally
use other things.
Hon.
Chairman Sir, I am thankful for the opportunity that has
been offered to me to speak on this small Amendment. Sir, when this
Parliament discussed the controversial 42nd Amendment, it was said that
the legislative competence of the Parliament cannot be questioned in the
court of law. This triggered800
the controversy. Ultimately, it was settled down later by virtue of the
44th Amendment. The legislative capacity of Parliament could not have been questioned
in those days. Now, Parliament’s capacity of legislation has become a
mockery through this Bill.840 I
do not know how this Bill was drafted without giving any due care for the
legislative competence of this Parliament. Ever since this Government
came into power, Parliament is being misused. Most of the State-subject laws
were brought here for amendment encroaching the State power. Ultimately, the
State autonomy and cooperative federalism became a laughing stock. It is
a900 small Bill but I am not
able to understand the way nationalism was put up everywhere even in the
Advocates Act. The hon. Minister talks about colonial law. In 1879, the
provision was there. You want to repeal it. But by way of repealing it, you are
introducing the same section, importing the same section in the new law. What960 does it mean? Is it not the same
colonial law? I am not able to understand the rationality of the Government
behind this amendment.986
