THE SATYAGRAHI LAWYERS

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

 

THE SATYAGRAHI LAWYERS

 

 

 The judgment of the High Court in the case of the Satyagrahi lawyers is, to say the least, highly unsatisfactory. It has shirked the issue. The logical outcome of the judgment should have been punishment and not a postponement of it. The lawyers in question had shown no repentance. So far as the public know, they will be ready to offer civil disobedience should the occasion arise. The issue having been raised, the lawyers did not ask for mercy but a clear decision. As it is, they do not know where they are. The learned Judges have laid down principles of legal conduct which, in our humble opinion, are open to question. For instance, what is the meaning of "those who live by the law must keep the law"? If it means that no lawyer may ever commit a civil breach without incurring the displeasure of the Court, it means utter stagnation. Lawyers are the persons most able to appreciate the dangers of bad legislation and it must be with them a sacred duty by committing civil breach to prevent a criminal breach. Lawyers should be guardians of law and liberty and as such are interested in keeping the statute-book of the country 'pure and undefiled'. But the Judges of the Bombay High Court have presented to them a mercenary view of their profession and have even confounded the functions of judges and lawyers. The only escape from the intolerable situation created by the In summing up, the Chief Justice in his judgment said: ‘I wish to make it perfectly clear that, apart from any other considerations, those who are enrolled as advocates or pleaders of this High Court or of the District Courts cannot serve two masters. It may be that after due consideration of this expression of our opinion, the respondents may see the force of it. We have no desire to deal harshly with them and for the present we shall content ourselves with giving them the warning. We do so because we are told that the Satyagraha Sabha since the riots of April has been quiescent. Whether we shall take any further action depends entirely on the development, if any, of the Satyagraha movement, so that these notices will be adjourned with leave to the Advocate-General and the respondents to move for their restoration to the Board should occasion arise.’ ” judgment is for the respondents to have the case restored to the Board, reargued, and to ask for a final decision. Fortunately, the Judges have left the course open to the satyagrahi lawyers.