Something about Objections during Trial and Opening/ Closing Statements

Dear Students

What follows has been developed from Stae versus Monty Khanna--an exercise that we have done threadbare in the class.

It is an attempt to familiarise you with some tricks that might come in handy while submitting your written work on Mock for the assessment.

MOCK TRIAL-MODEL LESSON PLAN¹

1. For the purposes of MT Assessment, there are four aspects of a the mock trial that a student must know: opening statements, direct examination, cross-examination, closing arguments.
2. Interspersed between the entire process, is the aspect of raising ‘objections’, which has been popularized by movies as something fancy and hard-hitting. There is however a whole body of literature around raising objections properly during a mock. I am going to touch upon a few basics of this art.
   OBJECTING DURING TRIAL

What are OBJECTIONS? And why do they matter?

1. Objections² are allowed during the trial in order to KEEP OUT evidence that is hurtful to your client.
2. Objections and evidence rules were created to keep the process as fair as possible.
   1. Evidence Rule: Fair hearing and to keep out any evidence that
      1. doesn’t relate to the issue of the case, (@ whether Kashish had a boyfriend)
      2. isn’t reliable (@ most of the testimony of Poornima) or
      3. value of which, as evidence, is totally outweighed by how prejudicial it would be (@ if ask the MD Sanjiv Bhatia whether Monty Khanna could do anything of the sort Kashish is alleging)—such objections stop a witness from testifying to something that is probably not very trustworthy)

3. In the assessment, you as an advocate can object any time during the EIC/Cross if you are sure that the opposing counsel is violating the rules of evidence.
   1. When to object? You can object to 3 things broadly speaking…
      1. questions that the other side’s counsel is asking,
      2. answers that a witness is giving³, or
      3. to exhibits that the other side is attempting to admit into evidence
   2. How to Object⁴?:
      1. stand up; say OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, _____(evidence rule)
      2. Wait, standing, for the ruling.
      3. No need to explain yourself, judge may agree with you! If he agrees he will say: “sustained”
      4. Judge may turn to the other advocate who asked the question or offered the exhibit, and that advocate usually will have a chance to explain why the objection should not be accepted by the judge.

3. There are TONS of evidence rules. Today let us learn at least 7 handy ones.
   1. Rule 1: Leading Questions
      1. A "leading" question is one which suggests the answer desired by the questioner, usually by stating some facts not previously discussed and asking the witness to give a "yes" or a "no" answer.
      2. Leading questions⁵ should not be asked when questioning one's own witness in direct examination.
      3. Leading questions should be used in cross examination.
      4. If it is used in Direct Examination and you want to object: Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, leading."

2. Rule 2: Argumentative Questions
   1. Advocates cannot argue with the witness. Questions cannot be argumentative in tone or manner. Badgering is harassing or asking again and again which is not allowed (later)
   2. Example: During the cross of Kashish--"So you were being harassed by Monty time and again and you decided not to tell the manager, not to anyone in the hotel, not even to your own mother!; How do you expect the court to believe that?/Perhaps there WAS nothing to tell"

This is being argumentative with the witness.

3. "Objection. That question is argumentative.”

3. Rule 3: Speculation
   1. You cannot ask questions that get witnesses to guess.

Ex: In the cross of Poornima--“Could it be that Kashish had developed feelings for Monty Khanna and that is what made her upset on learning about the latter’s marriage?

2. “Objection. Counsel is asking the witness to speculate.”

4. Rule 4: Narration (or non-responsive):
   1. Witnesses' answers must respond to the questions. A long story is objectionable. When the witness gives much more information than the question calls for.
   2. Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, narrative."

5. Rule 5: Relevance
   1. Questions or answers that add nothing to the understanding of the issue in dispute are objectionable.
   2. Questions and answers must relate to the subject matter of the case; this is called "relevance." Those that do not relate to the case are "irrelevant."
      1. Example: "Why does you mother not work Kashish?”

Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, relevance."

6. Rule 6: Badgering
   1. Similar to argumentative questioning, badgering the witness is when the opposing attorney asks the same question several times in order to harass the witness, usually done in a harsh manner.

Example—While cross of Monty—You have stated in your testimony that you had feelings for Kashish and found her to be an attractive woman...you even wanted to live together...what kind of strange and immoral ‘fatherly’ feelings are these? You have to accept that you encouraged and fanned the emotions of Kashish that made her delusional and totally besotted with you...YOU ARE THE ONE WHO ARE TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A HAPLESS GIRL!

2. When objecting, the attorney should stand and say “Objection. Counsel is badgering the witness.”

7. Rule 7: Beyond the Scope of the Packet
   1. Questions that ask about, or answers that supply, significant facts not contained in the packet are objectionable. However, minor obviously inferred details may be asked and added.
   2. Objection: "Objection, Your Honor, this is beyond the scope of the packet."

Now, something about the opening statement and the closing argument. Usually, the prosecution/plaintiff goes first.

4 tips to draft a good opening statement (to be taken in class by the teacher)

4. OPENING STATEMENT—State/Kashish’ side [might not be required for MT Assessment]

Your Honour, this case is about a 19 year old young and professionally inexperienced girl, who in such a tender age has been compelled by fate to fetch and fend for her family—family that has only dependent females in it. She has recently lost her father and trusted the accused to help her professionally. However, the accused being a seasoned womanizer used his charms to beguile the victim...used his influence to subdue her protests and tried to take advantage of her situation in the most heinous manner possible.

To prove this, I will call ---[these many] witnesses to stand…brief about each witness…

3 tips to draft a good closing (to be taken in class by the teacher)

5. CLOSING ARGUMENT-State/Kashish’ side

In my opening statement, I mentioned that I would call ---witnesses to testify as to the defendant’s guilt. Each witness testified as I explained and we have established the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt: 1); 2) AND 3).

We would ask you to reject the defense theories of the case. [Address each argument THAT YOU WANT TO DEMOLISH and explain why you disagree.

Argue why your witnesses (Poornima and Manager, Happy Hotel ) are credible, how they have nothing to gain by lying, and were consistent with each other.

Argue how the defense witnesses lack credibility—The driver for instance has been inconsistent in his statement; similarly, the MD does not want bad reputation for his company etc.

Explain that it is an important principle that people in our society be held accountable for their actions.

In conclusion, we would ask that you find the defendant guilty of breaching the trust of the victim and guilty of attempting an assault on the latter.

6. OPENING STATEMENT—Monty Khanna’s side⁶[might not be required for MT Assessment]

Your Honour, the case is about a thorough gentleman and a professional with a clean record of 15 years. 15 years of blemish-free service has been most horrendously tainted by his colleague—the most unsuspecting colleague who had designs on my client the moment she set her eyes on him.

It is also a case about how greed and uninhibited ambitions can make the life of a helping and ever motivating professional like the defendant, miserable. The Defendant has been artfully deceived into this situation just because he was steely enough to resist the immoral advances of the woman in question. The latter, scorned in love is wanting to settle a score against my client.

To prove this, I will call ---[these many] witnesses to stand…brief about each witness…

CONTRADICT THE OPPOSITE PARTY’S THEORIES:

The Plaintiffs hope that their witnesses will say…. However, in fact, the testimony will show…(that the plaintiff’s testimony is nothing but a bag full of lies. She is deceit personified and has clearly taken advantage of my client in all possible ways/that Poornima has nothing of her own to state and has been parroting whatever has been fed to her by her friend )

7. CLOSING STATEMENT-Defendant Monty Khanna’s side

In the case that the plaintiff has presented to you today there is insufficient proof to conclude that Monty Khanna is guilty of any assault. The plaintiff on the other hand is clearly guilty of misjudging my client's behaviour and imposing herself in the most immoral way on him. We would ask for a favourable verdict—the defendant is not guilty. [Echo or refer to the theme that you referenced in your opening statement—that he has been taken advantage of.]

Point out any inconsistencies in the statements of the opposite sides witnesses, and explain why witnesses might have a motive to lie…(may be used)

1 By Dr Sunanda Bharti.

2 Objections are for protection of the client against following strategies of the opposite party:

1) To bring such facts which may mislead the material on record;

2) Manipulative tactics to influence witness;

3) Create altogether new fact to confuse and divert attention from the subject matter;

4) Delaying tactics to prolong trial so that convict with death penalty could get the grace of more life;

5) Used as pressure tactics to demoralize the opposite party so that he/she can withdraw from the case or become hopeless for the justice, so that entire material on record could be interpreted differently without much protest or objections from the opposite party.

3 The counsel of In-Chief is not permitted to speak to his witness during Cross, but he can only raise an objection over the questions of opposing counsel on their Cross-Examination.

4 Examination-In-chief Counsel is also standing during Cross-examination and he will carefully listen to the counsel on Cross Exam, points objections immediately, even before the witness can answer.

5 Leading questions are permitted only during Cross examination, i.e. by Opposite Counsel only. During Examination in chief, if the witness counsel is asking a Leading question, then the opposite counsel can raise an objection.

HOW TO MOOT AND COURT-ROOM ETIQUETTE

What follows in these pages comes from my personal experience as a teacher of Moot Court, Mock Trials and Internship. I am sharing the same in the hope that students would benefit.

ADDRESSING THE COURT

• Be professional, polite, respectful, appropriately dressed.
• Know-it-all and overbearing attitude does not take you places; humility, on the other hand, strikes a chord with the judges.
• It is a fallacy that good debaters or orators are good at mooting. NO. They are good at arguing and one-upmanship-which are fatal to mooting. Over the years, I have seen debaters turn aggressive in their language and attitude to prove their side of the argument. This is not the right court-room attitude.

Presenting Your Submission

A. COMMUNICATION: Bear in mind that mooting is an exercise in personality development and communication.

Speak slowly and carefully. YOU SHOULD BE AUDIBLE, WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE. Do not speak to yourself. Try to engage the court by modulating the tone of your voice; court would reciprocate --it would be interested in hearing you out fully. At the same time, do pause to observe if the judges are interested and listening to you in the first place. Do not just rant away.

It is a legal issue that has been given as a moot problem to you. Remember your IRAC and kindly present a logical submission on facts and law. Emotional appeals, feelings, opinions etc usually have no place in mooting.

B. LANGUAGE TO BE USED: You may begin your submission with the following statement: 'May it please the Court, my name is ________ and I appear on behalf of ______. My submission will address…'

Conclude with one of the following statements: 'That concludes my submission. May I be of any further assistance to the Court?' OR

'Unless the Court has any further questions, that concludes my submission'.

Some OTHER useful phrases that may come in handy are-

1. ‘In my submission, I will show that____________’ AND NOT ‘...I will argue that… (CONTRARY TO POPULAR NOTION, YOU ARE NOT THERE TO ARGUE THE MATTER, YOU ARE THERE JUST TO PRESENT YOUR SUBMISSIONS). Having said that, NEVER ARGUE WITH THE JUDGE. NEVER.

At the same time, it is equally important to say that if you are confident, stick to your stand and be assertive about it, without being aggressive. Just because the judge has decided to ask a question on a certain matter, should not make you buckle down and shift your stand.

2. ‘In my respectful submission ‘the court should consider____________’ AND NOT ‘the court must consider________.’

3. When asked a question, answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and then explain your answer. LEARN TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED. Beating about the bush does not work. It is a good idea to pause (briefly) before answering a question posed by the judge, instead of blurting out whatever comes to your mind.

4. If you are unclear or uncertain about a question put by the court, some of the following phrases may be useful: 'I would be obliged if the Court would clarify the question.'(HOWEVER, NEVER USE THIS AS A TRICK TO BUY TIME—IT BACKFIRES)

OR YOU MAY SAY--

'I’m afraid I don’t understand the court’s point.

OR

'I accept the court’s point, however, it is my submission that…' [or] 'I would submit that…'

5. If you do not know the answer, kindly do not try to play bluff-master with the court. They will call your bluff and you lose credibility as a mooter. Instead, admit that you do not know and proceed.

6. Avoid phrases like 'I think'. 'I believe', 'I feel'. A simple ‘I submit’ would suffice.

7. In case you want to pinpoint something to the court, you may state it thus: 'May I bring the courts attention to paragraph ___.

8. Always ask the court whether it is aware of the facts of the case. Two simple ways of doing it are:

# 'Is the court familiar with the case of... ?'
# 'Would the court like me to state the facts of the case?'

Usually this is allowed to be skipped by the judge. Nonetheless, be prepared to give a rough outline if the court is unfamiliar with it.

9. Present your case – do not simply read your speech. An occasional reference here and there to the written memorial is not a problem. Presenting it as a news-reader is.

10. Keep a control over your hand gestures and movements. Limbs flailing here and there has to be avoided. Likewise, hands in pockets is a NO.

11. Expressions such as ‘Of course your honour’, ‘Yeah, that is what I meant’ have to be avoided at all costs.

C. SIMPLE MANNERS WORK WONDERS: The judge is not your pal. Try not to treat him/her like one!

Follow these:

1. Listen to the judge. Do not pretend that you are listening. ACTUALLY listen and try and make sense of what s/he is pointing at. Never interrupt a judge. If a judge interrupts you, what should you do?

• Roll your eyes in exasperation
• Show sass and attitude in your body language
• Go blank
• Mutter under your breath

The above may seem like computer-ji options of KBC but believe it or not, they are often the responses of some students. All are wrong and no-one can win a crore by using them.

What to do then—The right response is not that difficult, only if you practice it. The answer is, you should stop speaking (even if it is a middle of a sentence), and listen carefully to the judge’s question or comment. Then answer the same politely.

2. JUDGE WOULD QUESTION: Do not show signs of exasperation if the judge questions you. That is his job. He is not there to nod in agreement to whatever you state.

3. YES, it is a simulation exercise and you know that it is your teacher and not some actual judge in front of you. This should not, however, prevent you from displaying all your impeccable manners to that fake court. Mooting is a performing art which can be perfected through practice.

Practice away then.

Good Luck.

Spicy-IP Thrilled to get to you the first guest post

Wanted to share my perspective on moral rights and copyright in architechture and buildings... happy reading!

https://spicyip.com/2018/09/heritage-hall-of-nations-and-assertion-of-moral-rights.html

Spicy IP-Glad to bring you the 2nd guest post

Hey readers

Here is a link to my post on SpicyIP, a premium IP Law Blog. I am happy to share. Would be happier to receive comments on the same.


https://spicyip.com/2019/01/is-braille-a-language-under-copyright-law-capable-of-translation-reproduction-and-adaptation.html

Memorial Writing Basics (may be consulted by all years of LL.B)

Hello students

Welcome to my student interaction blog.
As promised, you are welcome to download the pdf version of the presentation made by me in Moot Court Society Orientation Programme on 22nd Sept, 2018.

You may access it here.

In case of any problem, kindly leave a comment, and I will try and sort it out for you in time. Feedback is welcome.

Happy studying!

Dr. Sunanda Bharti

Debate on rape and consent...

Hello Juris Students

I do not know how many of you have found time to go through the debate/discussions that were going on on the blog "Law and Other Things". The relevant link is on the right hand side of this blog, under the links column.

Having recently posted a comment on the issue, I thought it better to invite comments on my comment : ).

Alternatively, you may read my comment at http://sunanda.bharti.googlepages.com/rapeandconsent

It would be wonderful to share thoughts on this...

Happy reading!

Romanticizing the workshop

The Upendra Baxi workshop has been far above my expectations…the simplicity of that apparently eccentric academician is striking. For two days I sat there, mute and mesmerized, completely beguiled by his impeccable charms, charisma and ofcourse the inimitable style. I should stop here, lest I be branded as a sycophant! : )

Insofar as the content is concerned, ofcourse, I did not understand all of it. It is sometimes difficult to get his drift; to board his train of thought.

I am here documenting some of the points that my mind cataloged (all of which I enumerate may not be his thoughts as such…many indeed are the ones he just recounted; but nonetheless I heard them at the workshop), and those which do not cease to amuse me every now and then. : )

1) How to make jurisprudence interesting? Well, raise questions; let the spirit of renaissance not die. Reinforce the fact that while it might be prudent to rely on the intellectual wealth of the preceding generations, the capacity to think was definitely not exhausted by them! How simple and yet so difficult to achieve!

2) Take examples from daily life…without the fear of being charged for ‘vulgarizing high traditional knowledge’. The example of the movie Shahenshah wherein the protagonist epitomized the Austinian concept of power and authority and enacted the directive principles of state policy by the night was hilarious and yet so apt. : )

3) Speaking of humor, the capacity to laugh and make light of the situation is a must. It invigorates the audience…a skill perfectly displayed by the maestro.

4) Habit, Custom, Tradition, Rule and Practice are all different concepts and can/should not be used interchangeably. Words should not be taken lightly as they are powerful. They create an impact.

5) The entire world comprises of two types of people…those who are book worms and the rest who are ordinary worms! : ). It is up to us which category we choose to be in.

6) Why should we study human law and not divine law? Because renaissance saw it is a sign of progress to study human will than the divine commandment; after all it was supposed to regulate human behavior.

7) There are five types of judges…and this was brilliant…1) Activists, 2) Restraint prone, 3) Moody and temperamental, 4) Dullards and 5) lazy bones! The last ones just hijack someone else’s efforts by writing ‘I agree' at the end of someone else's opinion!

8) Jurisprudence is just a method of reading law. On ‘reading’, he had so many pearls to share…

· It is a misconception that writing should precede reading. How can one possibly read an unwritten constitution?!

· Reading is a political activity…it is impossible to be completely neutral while reading. So, nothing like objective reading exists. Your own ideas, beliefs and internal convictions would make you read even what is not written.

· Reading like a man is different from reading like a woman! Oh yes, I love this one! A woman would inevitably be more sensitive and emotional towards things…especially women related aspects. So true…often I quote in my lectures on feminist jurisprudence that while a man might read section 376 of the IPC as just another crime against the human body, only a woman would understand and perhaps live through the ordeal that it explains. All, I believe, stems from the fact that a woman experience is essentially different from that of a man…and infact sometimes, there is no parallel male experience available to enable them understand the whole issue. Hence their understandings remain incomplete mostly, for no fault of theirs! Okay…so I am digressing here a bit! :)

· Reading is either Complacency or Resistance…so says one of my many scribblings...no clue what this means…I forgot!

· Birth of a reader entails the death of the author…fantastic, I must say! Sovereignty of interpretation is the denial of the authority of the author…whatever might have been the intention of the author in writing a piece, the reader has a right to interpret and read it in his/her own way…attribute his/her own connotations to it. Yes, indeed! By way of example, he gave the instance where the Supreme Court judges interpret a point of law by attributing everything to the ‘intention of the founding fathers of the Constitution!’

· Limits of my language are the limits of my words…again, so true! Some time ago I read a quote in the Readers’ Digest which said something to the effect that one cannot write what one cannot imagine…it’s the same difficulty I guess.

· Reading involves dissection, demolition, reassembling and redoing…I forget what exactly it was that he said…

· Word is the world…someone help me on this. There was more to this...the capacity of human mind to forget is remarkable isn’t it!

9) An activist would consider speaking for others morally wrong, so he/she speaks with others…another option is to speak after (in regard to) others when it becomes impossible to speak with others…say when one is protesting for animal rights…cool distinction I must say!

10)Why the Constitution is called the ‘constitution’ and not anything else? Any novel thoughts on this one? ; )

11) Some people say that ‘we the people of India’ constitute the sovereign…but how can the quintessential common man…illiterate, impoverished…with no roof over his head, no bread to eat, minimal shred of clothing over his body, and not even the prospect of a decent burial be a part of the sovereign? Well said…Laxman’s common man just lost another case! : )

12) Then somewhere he mentioned something…bits and pieces of a story which included the following quote “I am a regular bullshitter myself, but I do not mind an expert doing it for me occasionally!” Sorry, I do not remember the context…loved the saying though ; )

13) When someone felt offended at one of his remarks, he quipped that if he ever intends to insult, there would not be any ambiguity to it!!

14) Upenisms…his experiments with language…one of the best ones stated that Constitution is of three types…C1, C2 and C3. C1 comprises the pure form…the words on paper; C2, the interpretation given by the State and citizens wherein the politicians act out of self interest and the citizens out of ‘enlightened’ self interest!; C3 is that ideal form that does not exist but influences C1. Original! Nothing more to say…

15) Perhaps the most disturbing of all for me was his idea of demolishing the manner of teaching through schools of law…as it promotes parochial thinking, stifles creativity. Now, when I see it…it appears to be so true. Why schools…why not topic wise…or say scholar wise…to keep things less rigid/more fluid. As he said, in some context which I again forget…we should change…by teaching the same things, we systematically foster and prescribe ignorance and then make rhetoric about lack of intellectual progress (or gripe about stagnation, if I may take the liberty to modify: ))

I am sure there were more …and it is the capacity of my mind that has failed me…would definitely add as I remember.

Meanwhile enjoy these!!

: )

We exist on the Internet now!

Hello all

There is some good news! The official website of Law Centre-I is finally ready, up-and-functioning!.
You may spread the news that we EXIST! : ))

The link is http://law.du.ac.in/

Do go through it once. Comments and suggestions are invited.

Check this out!

Cardiff Law Schools website has been uploaded. It has something about the Training Programme, in case you are interested : )

Click the following link: http://www.law.cardiff.ac.uk/news/news_display.php?id=387

When I die...

Sifting though your student days class notes can be fun sometimes.
See what I bumped into...
These were my sentiments then about Juris.
And as luck would have it, I teach it now...and enjoy it too!


When I die, bury me deep,

Five feet down fast asleep…

Place Dias in my right hand,

Tell the juris teacher, nothing I understand…

Lay my Salmond at my head,

He is ‘liable’ that I am dead…

I’ll make sure I meet Paton in that sleep,

He is the one who made me weep…

Ah yes…tell the teacher I've gone to rest,

And won't be back for that test

For I am using that 33% at my best…

My friends I advise not to flush,

They may fail now and avoid the Feb rush…

In the end I give no discourse

Someone tell them to scrap the course…

: )

Composed by Sunanda Bharti ages ago as a
student of LL.B, Campus Law Centre
(edited a bit for this post)

The Mindset and the Digital Electricity Meter.

Bloggers Note: Vivek Sethi, a final year student of Law has written the following piece. Comments are invited...

The privatization of distribution of electricity in Delhi has not always considered as a boon for the city. The part privatization has always seen with absolute cynicism, and alleged to be detrimental to interests of the consumers. The fact, that the power theft has reduced substantially and the supply system slowly and gradually steadied, has seldom found any appreciation among large segments of the society.

Well that is altogether a different story. I just have to tell you an interesting story about a significant and often neglected aspect: the phobias that surround digital revolution. Most of the NDPL and BSES consumers I have met nurse this phobia that the digital meter installed at their premises is unscrupulous. They hysterically believe that these meters work even when there is no electricity supply. Some sarcastically suggest that if Narayan Karthikeyan could drive his F-1 machine as fast as these meters’ he shall break all previous records of Michael Schumacher.

The said phobia is in turn the result of the strong canards that are omnipresent. I had heard them quite often like any other citizen of Delhi. The increasing consumer complaints at the various consumer courts and media coverage render enough circumstantial evidence to strengthen them further.

On a fine afternoon of 24 September 2006, our panic-stricken neighbor bumped inside our house. On enquiring, he told that a new digital meter has replaced the old meter at their residence. We also learnt from his expressions that like any good neighbor he was most concerned about the misfortunes in his neighborhood. He shamelessly expressed his resentment, as he hinted that only he would necessarily face a hiked bill and not us, his neighbors.

Much to the delight of our neighbors, on 26 September 2006 our old meter paved way for its new digital avatar. So far so good, but the same apprehension started to sink in my heart, to my utter surprise, I myself started worrying about our electricity bill.

I started keeping a strong vigil over the meters readings. Most astonishingly, I started to eliminate any wastage of electricity. Initially I faced some resistance from my family members; they started making perpetual fun of me. Like the famous dialogue of the film ‘Sholay’, my family invented a dialogue, “save electricity or Johnny aa jaayega”. However, they too, inadvertently started saving electricity.

The digital meter revolutionized the pattern of our electricity consumption. The entire family readily became pure conservationist. Our efforts realized the most unexpected returns. I never bothered to ask our neighbors but at the end of the billing cycle, the NDPL sent us a comparatively lighter bill. Thanks, to the meter and the rumors that motivated us to monitor and save, as much as possible, the prestigious electricity units.

Although, I now strongly feel that I should ask my neighbors about their electricity bill. So that in any case, if they still are in darkness, they shall realize that those rumors have no substance but our efforts can bear great results for the whole country. Needless to say, “thou shall love neighbors.”

Ganesha or Simply Another Suffering Animal?

Amongst the various absurdities that afflict human race, the most appalling perhaps is the ironically erratic behavior of this specie. No other being on this planet is so ridden with complications and hypocrisy.

Consequently, when it comes to faith and religion, we leave no stone unturned to even force feed paleolithic idols of Lord Ganesha, but give the living symbol, the Elephant, a royal ignore. How come our hearts do not move when we see these iconic Ganesha's in the Zoo's or doing a circus show, all driven by starvation or a painful ankush? Is it because faith is blind or because something is wrong with our collective vision?

Todays 'The Hindu' carries a wonderful article on Elephants. Do take time out to read the following:

http://sunanda.bharti.googlepages.com/asianelephant

New face of your Blog

Yes, from today more user friendly features would be added to the blog. I hope you like the change. Any suggestions for making the blog more interactive are invited.

Happy Reading!

Sunanda

Against DP.

The following is one of the responses received for the post "Santosh Singh's Trial: Is Death Sentence Too Harsh?" The author argues against death penalty (dp) for the culprit. Comments are invited.


My point-wise reply follows:

1.You say that social consequences would be far grave if an example
is not set at this very moment and that Law should be given an
opportunity to do some damage-control now.

A: What are these 'social consequences'? Will it lead to an increase
in the number of murders? Please look at the facts. In the State of
Travancore, there were 962 murders between 1945 and 1950 when the
d.p.was not in force; but in the five years from 1950 when it was
re-imposed, there were 967 murders. In Canada, after the abolition of
d.p.in 1976, the homicide rate declined. In 2000, there were 542
homicides in Canada - 159 fewer than in 1975. A survey released in
Sep.2000 by the NYT found that during the last 20 years, the homicide
rate in States with the d.p. had been 48 to 101 per cent higher than
in those that did not allow capial punishment. In the U.S., 500
people have been executed since the Supreme Court reinstated the
d.p.in 1976. Over the same period, 75 convicts were released after
evidence showed that they had been wrongfully convicted. (These
figures were cited in an article by Rajindar Sachar in The Hindu).

2. Is d.p. a damage-control devise by the Law? Control what damage? I
don't think it was envisaged by our law-makers as such. The latest
law is that it should be reserved for the rarest of the rare crimes,
considering the severity of the murder. But I am not on this law-point
at all, but on the ethical issues which you raised.

3. You are concerned with the message that a court order without d.p.
would give to the perpetrators of such crimes. That they can evade the
d.p. and continue to living at State's expense as a prisoner
undergoing LI.

A: Do any of us seriously believe that Santosh killed her, after
sufficiently pondering over the possibility that he could escape d.p.
because of his connections. It was a crime committed as a result of
passion, wrong parental upbringing, and not because in India, it is
possible to evade d.p. if you have right connections. If Santosh's
connections were the cause, then why Dhananjoy or any other lesser
personality would commit rape and murder?

Your argument would lead one to infer that all men are potential
rapists and killers, but they are held back, only because of d.p.
staring at their faces. Many men, in fact, are affected by the
passion, which drove Santosh to commit the crime, but they refrain
from doing so, not because of the presence or absence of d.p., but
because it makes no sense to commit such an extreme offence to satisfy
one's lust. Having said this, I would add, d.p. fails to address the
cause of Santosh's crime -which is wrong parental upbringing, which
could be the focus of a sociological inquiry (sadly no journalist has
focussed on this).

They need not live at State's expense. Their families could be asked
to meet the bill of their stay in the jail. If the families cannot
afford, I am sure there would be a number of human right NGOs, which
would come forward to meet this cost.

4. Giving another chance to criminal = risks social safety. The
debate on the Afzal case is a clear pointer that the social safety
lies in commuting d.p. as social safety in J&K, and as a result in the
rest of India, is endangered by the fallout of executing Afzal. In
other words, social safety should hardly be a consideration for
imposing d.p. How do we say that a person's death can ensure social
safety? Because we assume that he may commit similar crimes. This
probability should not be the basis for imposing d.p., because for
other forms of punishment, we rely on hard facts, not on probabilities
or likelihoods.

5. Denigrate the dignity of law? The law itself gives discretion to
the Judge whether to impose d.p. The Judge may go wrong in his
judgment whether the case is the rarest of rare or not. There is
cacaphony of differing judicial views on what constitutes rarest of
rare in the Supreme Court. So, dignity of which law? Putting the
social conscience on the wrong path? Do we believe the society
collectively will approve of rape and murder, if d.p. is not imposed
on Santosh?

6. Go a long way in disturbing the conscience of potential
perpetrators? D.P. has been in the statute books for a long time as
an option, and imposed several times, and many had been hanged. But
potential perpetrators continue, without their conscience being
disturbed. The reason is no murderer fears law, if he fears, he would
not commit the crime, if he commits, it shows he does not fear the
law.

7. Taking a principled stand against D.P. is not having an opinionated
mind-set. I have an open mind, but I want the other side to convince
me with facts, and substantiation.

Just a passing thought...

Yesterday, I read a quote on the status of animals in India...which I thought I should share with you all...It goes like this --" I would rather be a cow in the USA--well fed but slaughtered, than be a cow in India--worshipped and starved"

Suddenly, a thought crossed my mind...the condition of women (exclude those urban elites) is much the same...Women in India are glorified and hailed as Devi's, worshipped as the Mother Goddess...and at the very first instant of adversity, branded as 'witches' and hunted as game. I find the situation amusingly ironical. Is it not?!

Santosh Singh's Trial: Is death sentence too harsh?

Yes, we all are delighted, now that the case has been decided favorably.

One thing that many people have been seen pondering/introspecting and arguing is whether death sentence was necessary to meet the ends of justice. I have something to say here…

True that all of us, at one point of time or the other, tend to think along these lines. Our conscience is rattled whenever we picture the dependents of Santosh, who are no doubt innocent. But then, this would always be…there would always…ALWAYS…be two sides of the same coin. So, if the verdict in Santosh Singh’s trial has some benefits, it would inevitably and invariably have some adverse aftermaths as well (the most immediate one befalling the hapless family). The former however, in my opinion, far outweigh the latter. Just because the legal and administrative machinery did not/could not deliver at the right time or in a just fashion, and because of which the culprit managed to spread his wings, does not mean that Law should not be given an opportunity to do some damage-control now…now, that things are crystal clear.

True that some innocents would suffer…but is it not true that the social consequences would be far grave if an example is not set at this very moment? What message would it give the perpetrators of such crimes?—that they can evade the death penalty and continue living at State expense as a prisoner undergoing LI? Would that not be a mockery of Law?

Reformatory exercises for culprits and convicts is good; it sounds good at least…yes, one should explore the possibility of reforming a criminal, no matter how hardened one is…but as any general rule, this too has exceptions. And, in my opinion, if giving another chance to the criminal means risking social safety or sending a wrong signal to the society or denigrating the dignity of law or putting the social conscience on the wrong path etc, I do not think that the reformative effort is worth even a try.

The verdict in Santosh Singh’s case is a very specific one. By delivering it, I do not think that the court intends to purge the society of such evils in one go…no…but there is no denying that it would go a long way in disturbing the conscience of potential perpetrators. Fear of Law is not a bad thing, especially not if it has good consequences…it does has its own unique role in reforming the society, though insidiously. And, this is what the verdict would do.

JRR Tolkein, in his famous work, Lord of the Rings says in one episode, “Many who live deserve to die and many who die deserve life…can we give it to them? No. Then, we should not be too eager to dole out death in judgment.” It is a personal favorite…a cogent argument against capital punishment, no doubt! Having a stand point is wonderful…it shows that you are not a rudderless boat or a spineless person. However, I believe that adhering to any particular mindset in the absolute is never a healthy sign…to say that death penalty is wrong always and in all circumstances tantamount to falling prey to an opiniated mindset. Sometimes, I believe, it makes more sense to have the flexibility to be able reshape and reformulate the opinion…and this case fits that category.

Dear friends

The National Seminar on 'Perspectives on WTO and IPR's, held at ILI on the 28th of October 2006, went very well. Here are some pics for you to enjoy! The snaps are a bit jumbled up...not in the order of progression of the Seminar.

Ms Pratibha Singh, Sh Amarjit Singh, Prof BN Pandey and Sh BT Kaul (LC-II). The latter chaired and co-chaired respectively the concerned session.

Ms Anuradha Salhotra from the renowned IPR firm 'Lall Lahri and Salhotra's', a speaker at one of the sessions receiving a memento from Prof Bansal, the Director of the Seminar.

Ms Krishna Sarma, another speaker receiving a memento from Prof Bansal, the Director of the Seminar.

Sh Pravin Anand, an internationally renowned IPR attorney (Anand and Anand) receiving a memento from Prof Bansal, the Director of the Seminar. Also seen in the pic are Ms Pratibha Singh, Sh Amarjeet Singh, Prof BN Pandey and Sh BT Kaul.

The session in full swing...Ms Sarma elaborating on Well Known Trade Marks.

Attentive audience...Sh Afzal Wani, Dean, Law School, GGSIP University can be seen listening with rapt attention (sitting beside the person with blue tie).

The jam packed hall...Sh Pushpa Kumar and Dr Bharioke (both lecturers in LC-I) can be seen amongst the audience

Prof Pandey taking down notes...amongst others in the audience.

Sh Pravin Anand elaborating on Patents.

Sh Dominic Keating, our Chief Guest for the Seminar from the Embassy of the USA amongst student volunteers.

Ms Bharti, the anchor for the event, alongside an exhausted me ! : )

In all, it was a wonderful learning experience. On behalf of Professor Bansal, I thank all those participated in the Semimar in whatever capacity.