At the social level I have often
been asked whether I as a lawyer would support with my inputs a known criminal.
Does it not make the lawyer anti social in that he sides with the criminal. I
have often reacted stating that the perception of the role of a lawyer is
perhaps a tad misconceived by certain quarters of society.
The lawyer is a professional. His task is to remain wedded to it. Each
profession has a code of conduct and more importantly a holistic morality of
its own. The lawyer is required to voice the stance of a citizen. He is privy
to the confidence of the client. He is required to voice the stance. He brings
on board a specialised information that over a period of time becomes
knowledge. It’s usage could also make to wisdom. It is therefore a clear stance
that the lawyer is not a social cleanser, he is the insurance agent of the
citizens who uses his skill sets to ensure that the Rule of Law a huge
civilizational guarantee is not in peril.
I speak of all this in the context of legendary lawyer SR Ashok who departed
while in bed on the early hours of Wednesday. This column is not an obituary.
Ashok the man will surely be spoken about elsewhere and in details by many who
knew him even casually.
He was what you would call the exemplary lawyer. He kept morality of others
completely out of his system. In the privileged position I enjoyed of knowing
him intimately , I have seen how the task came to him naturally. He never
paused to value judge a person in the context of his profession. This also
aided him in not getting overtly passionate about his client or the cause.
Prepared with the law, armed a charm, focused on the task at hand and sensitive
to the bench he was addressing, he made the most complicated issue look as
simple as swallowing tasty sandwiches. In an obituary to the man I would say
that God takes them young, whom he loves more. God takes them without suffering
whom he treasures. Death is not a loss to the departed. It is tragedy for the
survivors and those who have memories.
The success of a good lawyer, like in the case of SR Ashok is the capacity to
be non-judgemental. It is fundamental to being a lawyer. We moralise. We judge.
We are constantly playing Big Bro from a moralistic, or legal angle. We are
labelling people. We are evaluating others. All this comes in place of applying
it to ourselves. This we are a huge aggregate of Double Speak. Ashok was the
contrasting exception. He sure had his moral code and that was not to impose
his sense of morality on others. That is the constant requirement of a lawyer.
While many of us would shout our lungs and bang the benches, this calm lawyer
would carry his charming smile and his balance all the while. This unarmed
curious judges and furious opponents. The man set an example and so perfect was
the example that the man became an institution.
The legal fraternity will learn from the life of the man. The fraternity would
do well to understand its crucial role in society. They are emotional midwives
tailored to play an important role in the social cleansing of a system in flux.
Lawyers are not judges. A person who jumps the gun and does the task of someone
else does so at the risk of displacing the balance designed for the system.
Imagine the gears deciding to play breaks or accelerator in your car. That is
the vehicle for, disaster. So let the advocate just be one. Let him not play
judge. When lawyers play judges and judges play God we are stewing a soup with
a recipe gone wrong.
L. Ravchander.