& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

STRAIGHT UNE

The clamour in court premises

Muhammad Nurul Huda
What in fact is at stake is the nation's honour and its concern for judicial integrity. The citizens expect our lawyers to be demonstrably appreciative of their unique role because they are leading the common man's fight against the lawless instincts of persons in authority.***
There can be no two opinions on the paramount necessity of having an upright and honourable court of law as the conflict resolution mechanism of a civilised democratic society. In fact, the apex judicial entity, which is the Supreme Court, is vested with the onerous responsibility of interpreting the constitution, the supreme law of the land. Judicial supremacy is, admittedly, the hallmark of an orderly and just society, at least in matters relating to affairs of the state.
To the Romans, "Justice was a goddess whose symbols were a throne that tempests could not shake, a pulse that passion could not still, eyes that were blind to any feeling of favour or ill-will, and the sword that fell on all offenders with equal certainty and with impartial strength." It is thus incumbent on all concerned to retain and sustain the dignity and majesty of the court that dispenses justice.
Well-meaning and discerning observers would perhaps agree that events and occurrences within court premises in Bangladesh in the recent past have at times made a dent on the dignity and solemnity of the court. The reference is to the aggressive slogan-shouting processions and counter processions by learned lawyers in court premises, particularly after some pronouncements of the court that angered one group while elating the other. In the not-too-distant past the doors of the justice of the apex court were banged by angry lawyers who accused the chief justice of being partisan. Reportedly, the attorney general's office did not escape the wrath of protesting lawyers.
Another unsettling scenario in the court premises becomes disturbingly visible to the public view when senior political leaders go in person to appear before the court. Such leaders are often accompanied by scores of lawyers, being aided by many political workers. There is an atmosphere of near pandemonium. While the body language of the lawyers and their supporters make one feel that they (lawyers) consider their leader's appearance in court a worthy occasion to display their political strength the harried law enforcement personnel remain in a bewildered state.
This writer understands that the court is a public place where entry is not restricted except under demanding circumstances. However, the question that agitates the concerned mind is whether an assembly of persons, lawyers inclusive, that appear to apparently overwhelm and browbeat the judicial process, shall be allowed to continue; and whether such aggressive postures within court premises diminish the dignity and clout of the judiciary. An additional query is, if, during an important political person’s appearance the presence of disproportionately large numbers of lawyers is necessary to ensure the due process of law. One could be oblivious of the additional expenses incurred by the public exchequer for deployment of security personnel on such occasions.
The Bangladesh Bar Council Canons of professional conduct and etiquette says that "it is the duty of an advocate to maintain towards the court respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office but for the maintenance of its supreme importance." It goes on to add that "a self-respecting independence in the discharge of professional duty, without denial or diminution of courtesy and respect due to judge's station, is the only proper foundation for cordial personal and official relations between the Bench and the Bar."
What in fact is at stake is the nation's honour and its concern for judicial integrity. The citizens expect our lawyers to be demonstrably appreciative of their unique role because they are leading the common man's fight against the lawless instincts of persons in authority.
The role of the court has been eloquendy narrated by Justice Frankfurter who said: "The court has no reason for existence if it merely reflects the pressures of the day. Our system is built on the faith that men set apart for this special function, freed from the influences of immediacy and from the deflections of worldly ambition, will become able to take a view of longer range than the period of responsibility entrusted to Congress and Legislatures."
The legal profession, we are given to understand, claims the allegiance of unswerving honour and asks for the guardianship of high tradition and also affords a wide field for loyal and generous service to the community. Our lawyers will surely not allow their profession to narrow their mind, as there is no horizon too large for them to gaze at. Men and women in black coats in Pakistan restored the dignity of their chief justice, defying the military. Our lawyers can surely hold aloft the dignity of the court.
The writer is a columnist for The Daily Star.