On Monday, lawyers practising in the city abstained from work in protest against several sections of recently implemented new criminal laws and alleged intervention by the judiciary in their affairs.
Shekhar Singh speaks to Delhi Bar Association president Nitin Ahlawat over lawyers’ concerns.
Excerpts
Your views on the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?
The new criminal acts are almost the same as the outgoing ones. However, certain sections empower the police with unchecked discretion. The current provision of allowing police remand for 60 days is draconian. Another issue is the recording of evidence at police stations. The Bar Associations raised it, and the Home Ministry immediately clarified that police stations will not be used for recording evidence. We are not living in a police state, and any such provisions will compromise the rights of the general public, accused, complainant, and legal professionals.
Provision for the registration of FIRs irrespective of jurisdiction. Is it reformative?
It will create a situation in which the police will be free to register an FIR, make an arrest, and take police remand against any person living in any part of the country. The fate of the accused can be imagined in such a scenario, who will be at the mercy of the police and the complainant and forced to bow down to their legal and illegal demands.
Can you suggest amendments?
The coordination committee of all the district bar associations, along with the Bar Council of Delhi, has raised the red flag regarding certain provisions of the new criminal laws and will shortly provide a detailed report on the problematic provisions and their solutions.
Matters related to the renovation of lawyers’ chambers have appeared in the media. Could you elaborate on it?
The judiciary is encroaching upon the autonomy of the bar association. The chambers belong to the lawyers, and the judiciary has no right over them. However, attempts are being made by issuing unwarranted administrative orders to prevent lawyers from exercising their right to maintain their chambers by carrying out necessary repairs and renovations. The Delhi Bar Association is the country’s oldest and largest bar association, and the executive committee always has the prerogative to ensure the welfare and day-to-day requirements of the lawyers.
How do these interventions infringe upon the privacy of lawyers? Can you mention any specific incident?
There is a clear distinction between the two sides of the legal system. The District Judge is responsible for the judiciary and court buildings, whereas the Executive Committee is responsible for the lawyers and the chamber complex. Any attempt at interference by either side will result in a confrontation. Specific incidents where such actions have led to significant privacy concerns include unauthorised inspections and orders to vacate chambers without proper notice.
Any suggestion?
To maintain balanced oversight, it is desirable to ensure a clear demarcation of responsibilities and enhance communication between the judiciary and bar associations.
Future of legal practice in India amidst these challenges?
The future hinges on our ability to adapt and advocate for the rights and independence of legal professionals. While reforms are necessary, they must be implemented with due consideration of the legal fraternity’s concerns. Continuous dialogue, transparent policymaking, and respect for the autonomy of legal bodies are crucial for a robust and fair legal system.