The expulsion of Law Minister Ram Jethmalani and suspension of two senior advocates from the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) have a touch of pathos. By expelling the minister when he had sent in his resignation, the SCBA has tried to score a point but has in the process only debased itself.The suspension of Shanti Bhushan and Kamini Jaiswal for defying the call for strike given on February 24 shows that it disapproves of dissent in any form. That they had not been served notices goes a long way to suggest that the SCBA is not run in a democratic manner. It is not difficult to realise why Jethmalani has been bundled out. Whatever may be one's views on the judicial reforms the government has up its sleeves, the lawyers should have no complaint at all that Jethmalani has not been receptive to them. In which other incident of police lathicharge in recent time has the government agreed to hold a sitting supreme court judge-level inquiry? The minister has been keen on holding talks with the lawyers with a view to narrowing their differences but for inexplicable reasons, the lawyers have been extremely adamant. A dispassionate review of the situation would suggest that the lawyers' agitation is a clear case of much ado about nothing.What are on the government's anvil are mild reform measures which should not have even disturbed the lawyers. Take, for instance, the procedural changes being made to reduce judicial delay. How can anybody, aware as he must be of the huge backlog of cases, whose clearance, at the present rate, will take several decades, find fault with these changes? In fact, most litigants will ask for a less cumbersome, less expensive and speedy judicial system. Given the fact that virtually anybody who holds a degree in law is entitled to practice, there is some merit in the proposal that lawyers must re-qualify every five years.The lawyers' organisations themselves had in the past insisted on certain reforms to improve the standards of the lawyers. One such suggestion was to convert the three-year degree course into a five-year course like medicine and engineering. Seen against this backdrop, the hullabaloo raised over the suggestion to have periodic assessment of the lawyers' ability to practice is unwarranted, particularly when the government is amenable to suggestions.As regards the entry of foreign lawyers, it is puerile to believe that it will take away jobs from Indian lawyers. In a country like England, an Indian lawyer with an Indian law degree is able to practise subject to certain conditions. There is no harm in allowing any lawyer from anywhere in the world to practise in Indian courts subject to conditions that the Indian system may impose from time to time. It is more a question of reciprocity. In any case, there are international laws to guide reciprocity. To argue as the lawyers do that nothing should be done that would harm their selfish interests is to ask for the moon. They should realise that change of laws is nothing new. Even the Constitution has been amended over 80 times since its inception. If the lawyers still feel that these changes are harmful, arbitrary and against the canons of law, all that they have to do is to wait till they are notified in order to challenge them in a court of law.
