Recently my wife and I spent a day in a court to give moral
support to a close relative. That experience stirred memories of my unfulfilled
desire to become a legal eagle. Regrettably, I ended up becoming a more mundane
mechanical engineer.
After I graduated from Enid Blyton, my early teens brought
me in touch with Perry Mason, the lawyer character created by Erle Stanley
Gardner. I devoured all his books and even contemplated pursuing law as a
career. I used to be fascinated by Mason’s courtroom strategy and practiced
saying in front of the mirror,”Objection on the grounds that it is irrelevant, immaterial
and incompetent”. His repartee with the District Attorney, Hamilton Burger was
very enjoyable. I later encountered Henry Cecil’s books that drew on the quirks
of the British legal system in a humorous way.Now,of course,John Grisham is the
flavor of the season.In my TV viewing schedule the raving and ranting anchors
and panelists on the 9.00 pm news have lost the contest for my eyeballs as I
prefer watching “Boston Legal”.
However, during those student days my access to law was
restricted to scenes from Bollywood films.I was not sure whether the screen
shots actually reflected the real proceedings in a courtroom. It was thrilling
to watch Sunil Dutt as a lawyer defending Raaj Kumar in “Waqt” mouthing,
“Objection Milord”. I understand that
lawyers are no longer required to address the judge with that honorific. Invariably
the camera would pan to the blindfolded statue of justice or the judge would
bang his gavel and call out “order, order”. I also wondered whether a judge needed
to break the nib of his pen after
passing a death sentence as shown in several movies.
Coming back to my visit to a Bangalore court, I was a bit
disappointed that that there was no fanfare when the court began. It was pretty
matter of fact. Our lawyer turned up late and we missed our turn when the
relative’s name was announced.This meant that we had to sit inside till it was
almost lunchtime.My wife was admonished by a court attendant for sitting with
her legs crossed, a strict no-no in court etiquette.We whiled away our time
till the afternoon hearing.
One case was rather interesting because it involved cross
examination by the defendant’s advocate.The legal luminary was straight out of
a Hindi film. A young woman was in the witness box.Our man would sarcastically
ask her a leading question and when she fumbled with the answer he would gaze
triumphantly at all of us sitting on the benches at the rear of the room. This
time I was chastised by an official for talking loudly when the session was in
progress.Luckily, our case came up for hearing soon and the judgment was
favourable.
Despite Mr. Preet Bharara’s open disdain for the Indian
legal system, there is something positive to be said,too.Yes,it may be time
consuming.In fact, there are over 30 million cases pending in Indian
courts.But,eventually justice does get delivered,thanks to the well laid out
procedures that have stood the test of time.
