Lawyer standing by his convictions

Having played a highly controversial innings as criminal lawyer, Ram Jethmalani is accused of defending smugglers and murderers on more occasions than the innocent. This has earned him both loyal friends and sworn enemies.

The 86-year-old Supreme Court lawyer didn't deviate from his tendency to shock with his choice of clients a few years ago when he took up the case of Manu Sharma, accused in the murder of model Jessica Lal in 1999 at the Tamarind Court Bar in Delhi. While out on parole, Sharma was recently spotted at a Delhi nightclub, sparking controversy. Jethmalani spoke to Gulf News about his involvement with the case in an exclusive interview.

Excerpts:

 GULF NEWS: In several high-profile cases, you have been asked by the courts to fight as a defence lawyer. In Manu Sharma's case, who approached you?

RAM JETHMALANI: Manu's father (Venod Sharma), a former Rajya Sabha member and colleague approached me. I took up the case because he was in distress and Manu's mother was suffering from depression.

Considering you are Manu's legal counsel, what's your take on his parole?

Law inflicts imprisonment, plus any other punishment. The day Manu was released, he went to Haridwar to perform religious rituals for his departed grandmother and attended to his ailing mother, who's been suffering from depression. It certainly did not mean his mother needed nursing. A mother pining for her grown-up son does not expect him to cling on to her like a baby. For her, his presence can be enough for cure. Just because she was seen attending a meeting, which other people fighting depression also do, so much was made of it.

And why can he not go to a bar to drown his sorrows? People may not believe he is innocent, but suppose he believes himself to be innocent — after all, one court did find him innocent. While on parole, he probably lived a normal life for a month and only then was given an extension for another month to attend to his business. But if the bar is such a bad place, what was the Delhi police commissioner Y.S. Dadwal's son doing there?

After Manu left the bar, there was a brawl with which he had no business. This is not my personal knowledge — but I believe what Manu's father has told me. He said that businessman Sahil Dhingra, who was there along with his security detail, picked up a quarrel with Dadwal's son who had arrived there. The latter probably called up his father, who sent policemen to arrest everyone present. But what cognizable offence had anyone committed?

And isn't this the truth?

No, this is not the truth but they persisted with this falsehood. There is documentary evidence that they (the police) are now fabricating something. I can't talk about it here, as it is confidential communication to me by my client. But I can say that they are trying to create false evidence.

Do you believe Manu is not guilty of killing Jessica?

I can certainly not go by what the press says. It would be dishonest for me to say that I personally testify to anything, but as a lawyer, I can go by the evidence. And the evidence is that two shots were fired. One went in the air and the other killed Jessica. Now the prosecution case is that both the shots were fired by Manu. As against that, I have the statement of the highest police officer, whom I would want to be called in the court. This statement was given the day after the crime that two different persons were involved in these shots.

The government's forensic laboratory has said that the bullets were not fired from the same weapon. This is the CBI's [Central Bureau of Investigation] own lab, but they have been so anti-Manu that they said ‘we don't believe in our own lab and will verify further'. So they went to some lab in Rajasthan. The expert there ultimately accepted that the first lab's view was right.

The case came to the High Court and the prosecution made an application to grant them the permission to go to a third laboratory. This kind of a thing is unheard of till now. But still, I on behalf of Manu, did not oppose it. Now, my grievance against the High Court, which I am litigating in the Supreme Court is, how they could ignore the reports of the two labs. And when the prosecution wanted to go to the third lab and the accused agreed, what right had the High Court to find the man guilty? My opinion is that on this evidence, Manu should not and cannot be convicted.

Are you implying that the High Court convicted Manu under media pressure?

I have no doubt that in this case the media caused tremendous prejudice to the accused. And that is one of the reasons on which the conviction of the High Court is challenged.

You mean the judges can be influenced on the basis of ‘trial by media'?

Judges should not be influenced, but they are human. It is the highest kind of contempt to poison public opinion against a man on trial.

You have been quoted as saying that ‘according to the rule of the Bar Council of India a lawyer who refuses to defend a person on the ground that people believe him to be guilty is himself guilty of professional misconduct." Why then is the press and public opinion against you for taking up some high-profile cases?

The press does not understand the professional ethics to which the lawyers are subject and a good section of the press, which is vociferous, is also corrupt. They keep creating prejudice against a person whose guilt has still to be ascertained. In Manu's case, one court has acquitted him and the other convicted him. The matter is pending in the Supreme Court. May be, I say may be, because as a lawyer, I am convinced that the High Court was wrong and the appeal will be allowed.

People are scared that you, a super-charged criminal lawyer, will be able to ‘defend' Manu in the Supreme Court although he has been proven guilty by the press, the public and the High Court?

It is absolutely ridiculous of the people who have no method of finding out anybody guilty. They are trespassing into a field which doesn't belong to them.

Is there some ‘hidden rule' where the judiciary sanctions the solace of parole to some and denies it to others based on the ‘background' of the person?

Not at all. Judiciary acts according to the code of the criminal procedures and well-known principles. There is nothing in our law which authorises judges to act in any arbitrary fashion.

On what basis is parole given?

Parole is allowed to persons who have completed at least three years in prison. The philosophy of parole is that a man given to incarceration and isolation is likely to turn out to be a permanently bitter enemy of society, in which event punishment has lost its purpose. By now, Manu has served seven years, thanks to the congested court calendars where the appeal can't be heard. Three times the matter has come up, but on some ground or the other the judge says that ‘if I hear it I can't write the judgment because I'm going to retire'. When we ask for bail they say, your matter will be heard in a few days.

Isn't there a process in the system where things are verified before granting parole? It is said that criminals get fake medical certificates and make good use of it?

Maybe, it's possible that fake medical certificates are used to obtain adjournments. So what is so peculiar about parole? A period of parole does not count as your being in jail. The punishment is not reduced.

What is the maximum time for which parole can be given? And the number of times in case of life imprisonment?

There are some administrative restrictions, but it all depends on the situation and discretion. And as no two situations are the same, there can't be an exact law for every situation.

Profile

Ram Jethmalani was born on September 14, 1923 in Shikarpur, Sindh (now in Pakistan).

Graduated in law at the age of 18. Being under-age, was given special permission to join the Bar.

Armed with a law degree and a ten-rupee note, landed in Mumbai from Karachi and lived in refugee camps - 1948.

A barrister charged him 60 rupees and gave him table space to receive his clients.

Fought the Lok Sabha elections for the first time as an independent candidate and lost - 1971.

Was forced to flee the country and went to Canada during the Emergency - 1975.

Won the two subsequent elections in 1977 and 1980.

Became the first all-India Vice-President of the BJP - 1980.

Federal Law Minister (1996 and 1999) and Urban Development Minister (1998-99) in the BJP-led government.

Fought and lost the Lok Sabha elections as an independent candidate against Atal Bihari Vajpayee - 2004.

Became a member of the Rajya Sabha - 2006-09.

— N.P.