Jethmalani-lawyers' war over CPC hots up

Jethmalani-lawyers' war over CPC hots up
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

MUMBAI, FEBRUARY 21: The war of attrition between the Union Law Ministry under Ram Jethmalani and the legal fraternity across the country on the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) just got shriller with the Law Minister declaring that the amendments would stand as they were ``intended to give relief to the litigating public''.

Rejecting their demand that the implementation of the Act be ``deferred'', the minister has instead punched holes in their method of agitation and has urged that ``lawyers build up opinion outside the profession'', ``since the current view of the Parliament will be changed only by strong public opinion''. The minister has also charged the lawyers with making being self centered. ``It will certainly reduce professional incomes. It is not in the government's policy or goal to preserve those at current levels'', he has said in a statement sent to the Bar Council of India (BCI).

Not to be outdone, the BCI decided in the February 18 meeting to ``record its strong protest in attempting toimplement the amended Act'' and has requested all the state Bar Councils and Bar Associations in the country to protest on February 24, 2000 by abstaining from court work, create a human chain, organise rallies, wear protest badges, observe hunger strikes and hold public meetings.

This will be the second time that the advocate fraternity is to protest, since a call for abstaining from work was observed on February 3, 2000 against the amendments. However, a final decision on joining the strike call is yet to be taken by the bar associations in the city. President of the Advocates Association of Western India (AAWI) V A Gangal told The Indian Express that a meeting will be held on Tuesday to discuss the issue.

In fact, the apex bar council has taken umbrage at the law minister's remarks that a delegation of advocates who had met him on February 4, 2000 were ``satisfied'' that the opposition was based on a misunderstanding. The BCI resolution ``regrets the impression created by the minister'' andDilip Bhonsle, member of the BCI and a member of the delegate that had met Jethmalani is critical of the Minister's statement. ``We made it clear that we were not satisfied and it was he who decided to issue the statement,'' he told said.

It was to ``clear'' the `misunderstanding' that the statement was issued by the minister where Jethmalani emphasised that the Section 100-A which abolishes appeals from the decision of a single judge of the HC to a division bench is good for the litigating public. Pointing out that the provision was fully considered by the earlier Malimath Committee, he stated that the section was endorsed by both the Houses of Parliament. ``It will save years of litigation and HCs are free to have these matters heard by division benches in the first instance or on reference by single judge benches on important matters''.

``In any case,'' the minister has concluded that ``litigants ultimately end up in the Supreme Court, it is better it happens soon''. ``But how many persons have themoney to go to the apex court?'' asks Bhonsle. Also, while there were a list of amendments objected to by the legal fraternity, only four are considered and answered by the law minister, he points out.

Section 15 of the Act which obliges the defendent to file his statements of defence within 30 days has been supported by the minister saying that ``habitual delays which disgrace our legal system are to be eliminated and harsh and drastic measures are urgently called for''. Though ``cases of genuine hardship can be remedied by suitable orders under Section 148 and 151 which are left untouched'', he added.

As for the fact that amendments will not be allowed once a plaint is made, the minister believes that this is a ``misunderstanding'' and added that all ``just amendments will be allowed under Section 153''. Lawyers here believe that the minister has misread sections, 153 as well as 148 and 151, which allow for no such thing.

Bhonsle adds that the Law Commission itself was of the view that the amendmentswere not entirely in the interest of the public but even this government body's views were not taken into consideration. As for the ``reduction in professional incomes'', Bhonsle thinks it will be actually to the contrary. ``If to meet the speed parameters laid down in the Act, suits get dismissed through default, it is the lawyers who will have to reinstate them. That will cost more money,'' he said.