Should the media compell Ram Jethmalani to obtain its opinion before taking up a brief?

Ram Jethmalani, the celebrated lawyer has taken up the brief to defend Manu Sharma who is alleged to have shot dead the model cum bartender Jessica Lal.

Next we find that there is allround criticism against Ram Jethmalani – because he decided to mount an effective defence in favour of the alleged killer. Some reports appearing in media suggested that even his immediate family members (largely comprising of legal practistioners) were also dead against him.

Lots of people have been expressing their opinion on the issue – the undertone being that it is wrong on the part of the celebrated lawyer to have come to the defence of Manu Sharma. Off course there have been some who have tried to see the issue in a proper light. But there have been others who have been spectacularly articulate in mounting a particularly virulent criticism.

This issue throws up some interesting but disturbing questions.

First and foremost does this brouhaha mean that Manu Sharma does not have a right to have a defence lawyer?

Secondly, what would have happned if, instead of Ram Jethmalani the celebrated lawyer, an obscure advocate had taken up the brief? Do you think that the media would have propelled such an obscure personality to the headlines of almost all the leading dailies in the country? Does this mean that just because Ram Jethmalani happens to be Ram Jethmalani, certain cases should be beyond his domain? Or to rephrase it, would it mean that heinous crimes which catch the attention of media should remain beyond the pale of celebrated lawyers – that celebrated lawyers should not appear in such cases as defence lawyers. Or that the media should decide which lawyer should defend which accused and in what manner.


Thirdly, why does the media feel or propagate the feeling that the prosecution is the underdog whereas it should be the other way round? No doubt too many infirmities get introduced in cases made out by the prosecution but most of that has its origin in shoddy investigation skills of a poorly paid and plainly incompetent police force. Now please do not get me wrong, our police force may be quite good at putting up a show in the honour of so called VIPs and may also be sufficiently competent in managing law and order related issues but when it comes to hardcore investigation they do draw a blank more often than not. This is a cultural and historical problem and can be overcome only when deep rooted reforms are initiated (read my earlier posts on the subject).

Well the matter does not end with the conviction of one Santosh Singh. It may not end even if the likes of Manu Sharmas and Vikas Yadavs are also convicted. It may not have any effect even if people like the Sanjeev Nanda manage to effectively buy their way out of jail.


What all this means is that the cases which get the attention of the popular media may get better treatment at the hands of the police and prosecution; but then, if the basic competence of police and prosecution itself is suspect then even after all the attention the cases may fail.

Now to blame the celebrated defence lawyer is akin to barking up the wrong tree.