Justice Uday Umesh Lalit appointed as the 49th Chief Justice Of India
On August 4, outgoing Chief Justice NV Ramana of India recommended Uday Umesh Lalit, the longest-serving Supreme Court Justice, as his successor, following a convention.
The move was immediately criticized on social media, with several users blaming Lalit for killing Home Minister Amit Shah in a case she was accused of overseeing in an alleged extrajudicial killing when she was Gujarat Home Minister.
They also noted Lalit’s appointment to the Supreme Court three months after Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party government took office in May 2014. However, the legal expert Scroll. in spoke to unanimously dismissed these claims. They said Lalit was a fair judge and his tenure thus far had not called into question his impartiality. Ethics of legal representatives
Before being indicted in August 2014, Lalit’s legal practice was thriving. He has represented high-profile clients before the Supreme Court, including former Indian Army Secretary VK Singh, former Punjab Chief Minister Amarin Dar Singh and actor Salman Khan. But it was allegations that he planned the extrajudicial killings of gangsters Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Tulsiram Prajapati when he was Home Minister of Gujarat from 2005-2006 that drew the most attention was the case in which he defended Amit Shah.
In 2010, Shah was arrested and briefly imprisoned in the Sohrabdin Sheikh case. Lawyers said it was unfair to criticize Lalit for choosing to represent the Shah or another client in this matter. “Lawyers should not be judged by the clients they represent,” said senior attorney and former Patna High Court Judge Anjana Prakash. “They represent the client on the merits and do not defend the client personally.”
In her words, “you must accept any plea that comes your way as a lawyer.” This is often called the “Cablank rule.” Just as a taxi driver cannot refuse a passenger, a lawyer must take on every case.
In India, this is spelt out in the Indian Bar Association Regulations governing the conduct of barristers. In accordance with the rules, lawyers can accept commissions unless they consider the fee consistent with their “perceptions in the legal profession and the nature of the case” and there are “extraordinary circumstances” such as a conflict of interest which will increase. , lack of expertise, etc.
The underlying principle is that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that lawyers should not assume otherwise. Or for prosecutors to prove cases against citizens,” said Dushyant Dave, senior attorney and former president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Although taxi rank rules have been criticized for enabling them, many believe the rules are necessary to ensure that no one is denied legal representation.
For example, a resolution passed by the Coimbatore Bar Association urging members not to defend police officers involved in clashes with lawyers was overruled by the Supreme Court in 2010. The court said this violated the defendant’s right to legal representation, citing the rules of the Indian Bar Association.
The court said similar decisions involved terrorism suspects or rape allegations He warned that such decisions were illegal, although he noted that they were often made in cases. It was unfair to judge Lalit based on his clients, even for lawyers who did not follow taxi stand rules.
Sanjoy Gose, the lead attorney, opposes taxi rating rules in principle and believes it is “disadvantageous to represent a client just because you can’t say no to them.” In spite of this, he insisted, it was foolish and childish of him to accuse Mr Lalit of being associated with the current Interior Secretary.” I will,” he added.
Even senior lawyer and human rights advocate Prashant Bhushan made clear that he did not intend to defend Amit Shah himself, stating: ” SC increase
But criticism of Lalit on social media went beyond customer choice, with many recalling the circumstances in which he was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2014.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court College recommended his four nominations as judges. Among them was former Attorney General Gopal Subramanium.
His newly elected BJP government acquitted his three names but did not agree to the elevation of the Subramanium. Media reports attribute this to adverse intelligence reports that appear to allege Subramanium had “corporate ties” and acted improperly as attorney general in certain cases. . However, Subramanium is widely speculated to have played a key role in the arrest of Amit Shah.
After the government did not approve his appointment, Subramanium withdrew his consent to his elevation to the Supreme Court. In June 2014, he wrote to then Chief Justice RM Lodha denying the allegations against him. He said his appointment was blocked by the government over concerns that he would not “stick to the line.”
Even Lodha openly criticized the central government for not approving his Subramanium appointment. . Lalit was then nominated to replace Subramanium and his nomination was confirmed by the central government in August 2014. These facts served as the basis for his users on social media to criticize Lalit when he was nominated for Chief Justice.
“Quite ridiculous.”
However, legal commentators vehemently disagreed with the criticism posed to Lalit. “I think that’s pretty ridiculous,” said former Supreme Court Justice Madan Ricoeur. “It was a mistake not to breed Gopal (Subramanium). This has nothing to do with the prosecution of Judge Lalit.”
Legal scholar Anuj Bwania agreed that “the fact that Subramaniam was not raised is not Lalit’s fault.” He said the appointment of judges is by default a political process. Lalit’s experience qualified him as a judge, said Anjana Prakash. “He deserves to be raised.”
Some lawyers believed Lalit to be a respectable judge who gave no reason to doubt his credibility. Told. “He showed no favour or prejudice towards anyone.”
Lokur said it was unfortunate that Lalit would serve his “unfortunately short” 74-day sentence. Judge Lalit was appointed to the Supreme Court directly by the Bar Association on August 13, 2014. In May 2021, Lalit J. was appointed Executive Chair of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). Judge Lalit will replace Judge S.M. Sikri, and we all know him as a person who served as the 13th CJI in 1971.
Judge Lalit passed several landmark decisions during his two terms on the Supreme Court Judicial Committee. Born in Solapur, Maharashtra on 9 November 1957, Judge Lalit obtained his bar qualification in June 1983 from the Bar Association of Maharashtra and Goa. He acted as an attorney at the High Court in Bombay until December 1985 before moving his attorney to Delhi in January 1986. Sri Sori J.
He worked for Sorabjee from October 1986 to 1992 and was a lawyer in the Commonwealth of India during Shri Soli J. Sorabjee’s tenure as Attorney General of India. He practised as an attorney from 1992 to 2002 and was appointed Senior Counsel by the Supreme Court in April 2004. He has also been appointed as a legal adviser on several important issues including forestry issues, vehicle pollution, pollution of the Yamuna River, and more.
He was appointed as CBI’s special prosecutor by order of the Supreme Court and has led all his 2G case trials. In 2011, the Supreme Court’s GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly appointed Lalit as the Special Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the 2G Spectrum case, stating, “For a fair prosecution of the case, this appointment was made by UU Lalit.” That’s excellent.”
During his tenure, Judge Lalit pulled out of several high-profile cases, including Yakub Menon, the Malegaon attack, Asalam Bap, the teacher hiring fraud case, and the Ayodhya title controversy.
Four major landmark cases:
Triple Tarak: One of the landmark rulings was a ruling by the Constitutional Court of five judges in August 2017, in a 3-2 majority vote, the instant he “nullified” the practice of divorce by Triple Talak
, declared “illegal” and “unconstitutional”. .” .
Royal Family of Travancore: In another significant ruling, the Chamber, headed by Judge Lalit, ruled that the former Royal Family of Travancore had built one of their richest shrines, the historic Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala. Having the right to manage, the “inheritance” must accompany the right of the “servant” (servant) of the temple.
POCSO: The bench, led by Judge U U Lalit, ruled that touching a child’s sexual body parts, or any act involving physical contact with “sexual intent,” is prohibited under Section 7 of the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offenses (POCSO). Judgment was made corresponding to “sexual assault” based on. The key factor is sexual intent and no skin-to-skin contact.
2G Spectrum Fraud: He was appointed special counsel for his CBI to trial 2G spectrum allocation cases.
edited and proofread by nikita sharma
