The Institute of Laws and Procedures of India - ILPI

26/11/2021

08/09/2021

31/08/2021

18/11/2020

I am a lawyer and legal consultant practicing in Delhi High Court, Trial Courts and Tribunals. When I was going through a book "PROUT" written by Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, I realize some inconsistency in the judiciary system and procedures followed by it w.r.t., trial and judgment in the court. According to Shrii P. R. Sarkar, When a large number of people who may or may not be criminals are murdered at the same time, it is called gańahanana. Even if a large number of criminals are murdered at the same time this term is used because it is very difficult to theoretically judge who is a criminal and who is not. Sometimes innocent people may be subjected to severe punishment because wrong information appeared in the documents and records concerned with their trials. At other times judges may deliver incorrect judgements, and in fact there are numerous cases where judges have made mistakes. In such circumstances even innocent people may be given capital punishment. Then again, innocent people or those who have committed minor crimes are sometimes deliberately given capital punishment because of malicious judgements. Such punishments can never be supported. For example, the murder of Socrates can never be supported, neither can the hanging of King Nanda Kumar or the assassination of Siraj-ud-doola. These murders can never be justified by logic or reason.

Hence, it very serious lack of procedures in so many cases in substance may not be in the form but it exist. It is urgent need to correct the irregularities in the process of justice to find the true law and order following by true justice.

Shailendra Kumar Lal
The Advocate and Legal Consultant
Delhi High Court, Trial Courts and Tribunals
Contact: 8510920428
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.neolawpedia.wordpress.com

05/11/2020

आपराधिक पक्ष के ट्रायल वकीलों के लिए कुछ महत्वपूर्ण जानकारियां, सफल प्रैक्टिस के लिए जिनका पालन किया जाना आवश्यक है।

1. अपने कागजात को बखूबी समझें "ट्रायल वकीलों काम बहुत कठिन है। सिविल मामलों के विपरीत, आपराधिक कानून में कोई दलील नहीं होती है। गवाहों के बयान अहस्ताक्षरित होते हैं और बाध्यकारी नहीं होते हैं। गवाह मुकर सकते हैं। पहली बात है कि अपने कागजात को अच्छी तरह से बुद्धिमानी और कल्पनाशीलता से समझना। जब मामला ट्रायल के लिए आएगा तो क्या विचलन हो सकता है, इसका आकलन करना भी महत्वपूर्ण है। एक कल्पनाशील ट्रायल वकील उस के बारे में सोचता है। आपराधिक प्रक्रिया की धारा 207 के तहत आपको सभी कागजात की पूरी जानकारी होनी चाहिए "

2. साक्ष्य अधिनियम का पूर्ण ज्ञान "अच्छा ट्रायल वकील होने के लिए, आपको साक्ष्य अधिनियम और प्रावधानों को पूरी तरह से जानना चाहिए"।

3. प्रक्रियात्मक और ठोस कानूनों की पूरी जानकारी एक ट्रायल वकील को दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता और साक्ष्य के नियमों की पूरी जानकारी होनी चाहिए। इसके अलावा, वकील को कानून, अपराधों की परिभाषा और अदालतों ने उनसे कैसे निपटा है, सामान्य अपवाद आदि से अच्छी तरह वाकिफ होना चाहिए।

4. एक कल्पनाशील मन मामले की सभी संभावनाओं पर काम करने वाला एक कल्पनाशील दिमाग आवश्यक है। "आपके पास एक कल्पनाशील कॉमन सेंस होना चाहिए ताकि आप विभिन्न संभावनाओं का आकलन कर सकें जो तथ्यों से उपजी हों।"

5. ऐसी समझ ‌कि अभियोजन से हर चीज़ के लिए लड़ना, मदद करने वाली नहीं है ट्रायल वकील को स्पष्ट तथ्यों पर विवाद नहीं करना चाहिए। "मैं उन वकीलों को जानता हूं जो हर बात से इनकार करते रहते हैं। कुछ लोग तो इस बात से भी इनकार करते हैं कि गवाह एक पुलिस अधिकारी है। वह पूछते हैं कि क्या आपके पास कोई दस्तावेज है, जो यह बताए कि आप पुलिस अधिकारी हैं। केवल अनुभवहीन व्यक्ति ऐसा करता है।" के कुन्हीरामन की शिक्षाओं को को याद करते हुए कहा जा सकता है : "जहां तक ​​संभव हो अभियोजन पक्ष के साथ जाएं; केवल महत्वपूर्ण बिंदुओं पर अपना रास्ता अलग लें और अभियोजन पक्ष से दूर जाएं"।

6. जहां तक ​​संभव हो निश्च‌ित मामला लें; विरोधाभासी दलीलों से बचें के कुन्हीरामन के सबक को याद करते हुए कहा जा सकता है " जहां तक संभव हो एक निश्चित मामला लें। आप वैकल्पिक बचाव कर सकते हैं, लेकिन विरोधाभासी बचाव नहीं कर सकते- जैसे कि एलिबी और निजी बचाव की रक्षा। इससे आपको हार का सामना करना पड़ेगा। ऐसे बचाव, जो एक दूसरे के विरोधाभासी हैं, उन्हें लेना समझदारी नहीं है।

7. प्रभावी कम्यून‌िकेशन और विश्लेषण की क्षमता एक वकील के लिए प्रभावी कम्यून‌िकेशन आवश्यक है। हालांकि लच्छेदार भाषा या वक्तृत्व बहुत मदद करने वाला नहीं है। एक अच्छा जज लच्छेदार भाषा पर ध्यान नहीं देता है। क्या अधिक महत्वपूर्ण है यह कानून और तथ्यों के विश्लेषण से आता है। युवा वकीलों को केवल इसलिए नहीं शर्माना चाहिए क्योंकि उनके पास लच्छेदार अंग्रेजी भाषा नहीं है। अंग्रेजी पर महारत की तुलना में विश्लेषण की शक्ति अधिक महत्वपूर्ण है।

8. कड़ी मेहनत; कोई शॉर्ट कट नहीं लेखक ने कड़ी मेहनत के महत्व पर प्रकाश डाला और कहा कि सफलता के लिए कोई शॉट कट नहीं है। उन्होंने कहा कि पेशे से गॉड फादर या पूर्ववर्ती होना सफलता के लिए आवश्यक नहीं है। "मैं इसके लिए शर्त लगा सकता हूं। पेशे से मेरा कोई गॉड फादर नहीं है।"

शैलेंद्र कुमार लाल
अधिवक्ता
दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय , ट्रिबुनल्स, ट्रायल कोर्ट
8510920428
[email protected]
www.neolawpedia.wordpress.com

07/11/2019

Seeking to regulate the media reporting of the clash between Delhi police and lawyers, a Public Interest Litigation petition has been filed in the Delhi High Court.

The petition field by Pawan Prakash Pathak and Prakash Sharma, two Delhi-based lawyers, states that the reports in media about the issue has shown legal fraternity in bad light. The petitioners state that the media has given a different spin to the issue to 'suit their TRP'.

News reports on the issue have been partisan and defamatory against advocates, and some news channels have called advocates 'gundas', the petition states.

According to the petitioners, their petition is against "unreasonable and unwarranted" journalism which have reported the issue as a tension between lawyers and police.

"The issue which would have been resolved by simple mediation between the two sides has been given colour of "Lawyers vs Police"and same is being telecasted throughout the day", states the petition.

"News on-air like "goons in blackcoat" "Dogs in black Coat" "Dictatorship of Black Coat"seeds the suspicious question in mind of public at large that the judiciary and its court officers are not trustworthy and there is a situation of emergency in the country and such unreasonable news with no fact-finding is pushing the Indian democracy into grave danger,as such telecast portray the picture far away from reality and is not the true meaning and spirit of journalism", the petition says.

Quoting the order passed by the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, the petition stated that lawyers and police were the two sides of same coin. There was no 'Lawyers v Police' issue, asserted the petitioners.

The petitioners seek to direct the Union Government to regulate the media reports and viral content on social media which show judiciary and legal profession in bad light and promote the feeling of enmity between lawyers and police.

The media reports which worsen the situation and create feeling of unrest between both the communities should be avoided, the plea stated.

06/11/2019

Bar Council of India has released a statement seeking a High Level Committee to be appointed to find as to who all were involved in planning the police protests, which the body has deemed as illegal.

In addition to this, the Council has also demanded the arrest of police officers who had planned the said protests within one week, failing which, the Bar will resort to peaceful dharna.

In the statement released just hours prior to the hearing which is scheduled before the Delhi High Court, the BCI has stated that police officers remained absent from duty for hours, used derogatory language against the lawyers and threatened to smash and kill the lawyers openly.

According to the Council, the aforementioned behaviour attracts liability under section 3 of Police Forces (Restriction Rights) Act, which lays down imprisonment of upto 2 years. It has asked the Police Commissioner to look into the matter.

It is also stated by the BCI that the police protest was well planned and it was intended to threaten not just the lawyers but also the government and the judiciary. Therefore, the body demands disciplinary action to suspend all those who participated in the protests and the dismissal of those who were actively shouting slogans.

On the issue of the video from outside the Saket court, which had gone viral, the Body has stated that even if the events in the video are purported to be true, it only attracts a case under section 323 of IPC. The Body has condemned the adding of the offence of dacoity against the lawyer who was captured in the video.

BCI has also asked media to restrain itself from reporting the 'hooliganism' of such protests, which the Council has also termed as 'illegal' and 'unconstitutional'.

In addition to this, BCI has requested the lawyers to suspend the abstinence from work for 10 days and resume working. However, if the demand of arrest is not fulfilled within 10 days, BCI will decide on future course of action.