Cow Slaughter and the Constitution: Uneasy Compromises

Article by Shalvi Singh

Cow slaughter finds a special mention in the Indian Constitution under Article 48 which
specifically obligates the State to take steps towards prohibiting the slaughter of “cows and
calves and other milch and draught cattle”. However, interestingly, it omits other bovines,
seemingly because slaughtering them could not have been quite as profitable for the
economy.[1] By revisiting the Constituent assembly debates, it can be clearly inferred that
Article 48 was inserted in the Constitution mainly from an economic standpoint, and it was
ensured that the language used in the Article did not convey or reflect any religious motivation or
sentiment.

By virtue of Entry 15 of the State List under Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the State
Legislatures have been given exclusive powers to make laws regarding the conservation of cattle
including the prevention of cow slaughter. Thus, in India, different states have their own
legislations which deal with cow slaughter.

Judicial Decisions on Article 48

In Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar[2], the constitutionality of cow slaughter laws was
first decided by a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India. In this case, the
constitutional validity of laws banning cow slaughter in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh was challenged on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights. The Court held that
since cow slaughtering was not mandatory under Islam, its practice did not conflict with the right
to freedom of religion as granted under Article 25 of the Constitution. On the question of right to
freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g), the Court considered the utility of cows as the measure
of justifiability of the statutes prohibiting cow slaughter. The Court though was of the view that a
total ban on slaughter of buffaloes and bulls after they ceased to be capable of yielding milk or
working as draught cattle would be invalid, the same could actually hold good for cows of ‘all
ages’. Hence, in Court’s opinion, the total ban on cow slaughter was not violative of Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Court gave economic reasons for arriving at its conclusion, but one fails to understand as to
how only cows cannot be a burden after they stop yielding milk.[3] This discrepancy in Court’s
reasoning only seems to validate what was long anticipated by Syed Muhammad Sa’adulla
during one of the Constituent Assembly debates as he feared that Article 48 could be used by
provincial governments to ban cow slaughter on religious reasons rather than economic
grounds.[4] This was in fact made true in the case of Municipal Corporation of the city of
Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai[5], where the Supreme Court directed the slaughter
houses to remain closed on important days of Hindu worship, thereby interpreting Article 48 for
purely religious considerations.

Later in 2005, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti
Kureshi Kassab Jamat[6] overruled the decision given in the Hanif Quareshi case. The Court
held that a legislation putting a total ban on cattle slaughter, without any regard to its utility, shall
be valid. The Court took a divergent stance by stating that socio-economic conditions in the
country had changed from what had existed when the judgment in Hanif Quareshi was passed.
The Court thus opined that Article 48 of the Constitution could not be interpreted to mean as not
giving protection to those cattle which were not useful, and hence, even ‘useless’ cattle were not
to be treated as burden on state resources.

Contentious Points in Moti Kureshi

The Moti Kureshi judgment ignored the fact that most cattle deaths were a result of disease and
neglect by the owner and not of deliberate killing.[7] The Court put an unwarranted amount of
emphasis on the fundamental duty of a citizen to have compassion for living creatures (as laid
down in Article 51A(g)) and failed to address the question of livelihood of butchers and the
larger issue of diversity. The Court held that the provisions of the Act prohibiting cow slaughter
did not violate the right of butchers under Article 19(1)(g) as they were free to sell those animals
which were not covered under the Act.

To make matters worse, the court held that “Beef contributes only 1.3% of the total meat
consumption pattern of the Indian society. Consequently a prohibition on the slaughter of cattle
would not substantially affect the food consumption of the people.” The Court made an
unconvincing attempt to further defend its decision by stating that the words “milch and draught
cattle” had been used in the Article not for determining their usefulness but for differentiating
between other cattle, such as goat and sheep.

It is important to note here that in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala,[8]the Supreme Court
had held that fundamental rights and directive principles are complementary to each other and
they supplement each other in the establishment of a welfare state. But, in Moti Kureshi, the
Court was of the view that post the decision in Kesavananda Bharati, “the restriction which can
be placed on the rights listed in Article 19(1) are not subject only to Articles 19(2) to 19(6); the
provisions contained in the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy can also be pressed
into service and relied on for the purpose of adjudging the reasonability of restrictions placed on
the Fundamental Rights.” This view raises an important question that whether in order to
facilitate the implementation of a directive principle, the fundamental right of a person can be
abridged.

The Court in Hanif Quareshi had opined that a total ban on the slaughter of useless cattle would
result in the drain of nation’s cattle feed, thereby depriving the useful cattle of nourishment, and
would also adversely affect the occupation and business of the butchers. It had also held that “a
harmonious interpretation has to be placed upon the Constitution and so interpreted it means that
the State should certainly implement the directive principles but it must do so in such a way that
its laws do not take away or abridge the fundamental rights, for otherwise the protecting
provisions of Chapter III will be a mere rope of sand.” Thus, putting a total ban on cattle
slaughter surely violates the right of butchers under Article 19(1)(g) and such a move cannot be
in the interest of general public.

In the aftermath of Moti Kureshi judgement, draconian laws like the Madhya Pradesh Gau Vadh
Pratishedh (Sanshodhan) Act, 2012 and the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act,
1995 were passed. These laws apart from banning the slaughter of cows, bulls, bullocks and
‘other cattle’, also impose heavy fine and punishment for consuming beef. Though the Moti
Kureshi judgment upheld the ban of cow slaughter and its progeny, it never implied that the
possession of beef would also be unconstitutional as it may happen that the beef may have been
imported from some other state or country where cow slaughter is permitted. The above-
mentioned legislations therefore have gone a step further by making the possession of beef (even
if the cattle were slaughtered outside the state) illegal.[9] Moreover, the burden of proof is on the
accused. This obviously exceeds the interpretation of Article 48 as the latter only requires the
State to prohibit cow slaughter and not beef consumption.[10]

Conclusion

After examining the judicial decisions on the validity of various anti-cow slaughter laws, it can
be concluded that total prohibition of slaughter of cow and its progeny is valid under the
Constitution. Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava, during one of the Constituent Assembly debates had
remarked: “I do not want that, due to its [Article 48] inclusion in the Fundamental Rights, non-
Hindus should complain that they have been forced to accept a certain thing against their
will.”[11] Though presently, Article 48 has not been made a fundamental right, yet nonetheless,
through the interpretation done by the Apex Court it seems that people are being forced to accept
something that is against their will. The Moti Kureshi judgement has opened doors for many
draconian anti-cow slaughter legislations. These legislations are a clear case of religious
majoritarianism[12] as they are being passed mostly for electoral gains on implausible grounds
of religious faith.

It diverges from the intention which the Constitution-makers had while inserting Article 48 in the
Constitution.[13] Such extended interpretation being given to the provision laid down by the
lawmakers is a worrisome matter. Thus, in greater interest of the country and to prevent
aggravation of social disharmony, it is necessary that the Supreme Court reviews its decision in
the Moti Kureshi case.

[1] Constitutional Assembly Debates 24 November 1948, vol 7 (hereinafter, ‘Constituent

Assembly Debates vol 7’) http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/vol7p12.htm

[2] [1958] AIR 731 (SC).

[3] Shraddha Chigateri, “Negotiating the ‘Sacred’ Cow: Cow Slaughter and the Regulation of
Difference in India”
(Academia.edu) http://www.academia.edu/929980/Negotiating_the_SacredCow_Cow_Slaughter
_and_the_Regulation_of_Difference_in_India

[4] Constituent Assembly Debates vol 7 (n 2).

[5] [1986] AIR 1205 (SC).

[6] [2005] 8 SCC 534 (SC).

[7] A Vaidyanathan, “Cow Slaughter Ban and the Welfare of Cattle” (2015) 50 Economic &
Political
Weeklyhttp://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2015_50/48/PE_L_48_281115_A_Vaidyanathan.pdf

[8] [1973] AIR 1461 (SC).

[9] Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act 1995, s 5D.

[10] ‘Kill the man, he ate that cow’ (Ourstories) http://www.ourstories.org.in/kill-the-man-he-

ate-that-cow/

[11] Constituent Assembly Debates vol 7 (n 2).

[12] Arjun Sheoran, ‘In Defence of The Beef Eater’s’ (Arjun Sheoran’s Musings, 4 January
2012) http://www.arjunsheoran.com/2012/01/in-defence-of-beef-eaters-questioning.html

[13] Arvind K Abraham, ‘The Holy Cow: Anti Cow Slaughter Laws & The Constitution’ (CLS
Blog, 23 November 2013) https://wbnujscls.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/the-holy-cow-anti-cow-
slaughter-laws-the-constitution/

Space Law and India

Article by Ananye Krishna

Presently, India does not have any legislation on space. It only has some policies and guidelines
which govern space-related activities like the Satellite Communications Policy (hereinafter
‘SATCOM Policy’), 1997 and the Remote Sensing Data Policy (hereinafter ‘RSDP’), 2011 of
the Department of Space, GoI. Besides, India is also party to international space treaties, the
chief among them being the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. Now the question arises that when
there are international laws governing activities related to space then what is the need for a
domestic legislation.

Understanding this would require looking at countries which do have their own space
legislations like the United States and France.[1] The fields covered by space law in the US, for
example, are quite extensive and cover a broad array of legal issues involving questions of torts,
insurance, contract, intellectual property rights, indemnification, etc. One of the most apparent
needs for any such space legislation is to govern private bodies which are now increasingly
getting involved in spatial activities. These private bodies include individuals and groups, and
are to be considered representatives of their respective states of nationality in order that the
liability for their actions can be deemed to lie with such states in accordance with international
law. It is for this attribution of liability in an unfortunate circumstance that certain substantial
rules become indispensable for the proper regulation and management of private bodies
conducting space activities.

As stated, India’s space policy as of now consists only of the SATCOM policy and the RSDP.
These policies only provide a mere outline of what the government wants to do with no legal
obligation attached to them. More importantly, there is no policy which sets out the procedure to
be followed for the authorisation of space launches by private entities. As such, the question
surrounding the ascertainment of responsibility for damage that may arise out of space activities
conducted by these entities remains unresolved.

Considering that start-ups like Dhruva Space intend to launch their satellites in the near future,
these issues need to be looked at with greater urgency. The Chief Strategy Officer of Dhruva,
Abhishek Raju, recently stated, “We need to convince the government to create policies to
include smaller companies like us and integrate us into the ecosystem.”[2] The SATCOM policy
of 1997 (in sections 2.2 and 2.2[c]), in this regard, for instance, talks to some extent about how
there is a requirement for the formulation of norms and rules related to the authorisation of
private companies for conducting space activities.

A recent development that could be observed on this front is the Government’s release of the
Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016 which aims at creating a licensing regime for the
use of Indian geo-spatial information. If passed, this bill shall be considered a first major step
taken by the Indian Government towards domestic legislation regulating space activities. The
law, however, has its own set of demerits as it brings with it severe implications for violating the
obligations created by it with fines as high as a billion rupees against committed transgressions.
Such a law therefore has the potential to hinder the development of the private space sector as
private enterprises operating in the field require huge finances, even to reach their break-even
point. Putting such a big financial liability on a small entity which is already struggling to
survive and thrive is more than just a setback.

For instance, Dhruva Space, a private space enterprise which wishes to use a satellite to help taxi
services in the country will have to regularly keep track of the various changes taking place at
the cellular level on the streets of India, and for all these changes they will be required to
continuously go through the tedious process of getting their licences renewed where even a bit of
laxity on their part may lead to a huge financial setback.

Conducive rules and regulations on the other hand will help in attracting private players to fill
the existing void and this will help in lowering the cost of SATCOM, thereby increasing the
number of people who would be able to invest in it.[3]

Satellites are more important to us than ever in this age where information is everything. From
health care to education to transport, every field would only benefit with better technologies and
infrastructure in the field of satellite development. Take into consideration the Goods and
Services Tax (GST) bill which aims to replace the existing tedious and inefficient offline setup
of tax collection, compliance and filling with an online mechanism. For this, the Internet will
have to precipitate into the remotest regions of the country and for that to happen we would
require satellites. This can be done economically only by including private players in the
business.[4]

Monopoly over remote sensing, poor governance of geographical information and transponder
leasing issues are other problems which need immediate attention. Presently, the government has
complete control over the manner in which authorization for space launch has to be given and the
manner in which spectrum and orbital allocation has to take place. Moreover, there is no clarity
as to how these discretionary powers are exercised. As a result, very few private players are
attracted to invest in space-related activities.[5]

There are many stakeholders who suffer because of non-availability of Ku band transponders.
One of the major victims are the Direct-to-Home (hereinafter ‘DTH’) service providers as
without access to Ku band transponders it becomes difficult for them to expand the number of
channels which they can provide to their customers. Presently, 75% of the transponder
requirements of DTH service providers are being met by foreign satellites. This lack of
transponders will lead to DTH service providers facing heavy competition from the cable TV
operators who presently have double the number of channels offered by the DTH service
providers.

Presently, the DTH service industry depends on 78 transponders and it requires another 200 to
survive the competition. Although, foreign satellites have sufficient capacity of the said
transponders, for accessing them, private entities have to get clearance from the Indian Space
Research Organisation (ISRO) and its commercial arm, Antrix Corporation. This delays the
whole process because Antrix sublets the foreign transponders to Indian DTH providers through
back-to-back agreements. Even though they can directly negotiate for the C band, there is yet
another issue of short-term contracts as India hopes to replace foreign transponders with Indian
ones when they become available.[6] India’s inability to launch satellites with the appropriate
number of Ku band transponders is forcing many DTH service providers to move away from
Indian satellites to the foreign ones.[7]

Transponders are also required to improve military communication[8] and various tele-health
and tele-education programs. Tele-health refers to providing health care over a distance by
means of modern communication devices, and for expanding the scope of this phenomenon it is
necessary that telecommunication reaches the remotest of regions in the country. Similar is the
case with tele-education. EDUSAT or GSAT-3 is the only satellite owned by the Indian
Government which at present provides educational content to thousands of educational
institutions across India. A mass campaign such as this one in the absence of an efficient
domestic space ecosystem with inclusion of private players is unlikely to succeed. An example
of such failure can be the case of Jammu and Kashmir where the satellite was functional till it
was being maintained by a private company, but due to subsequent dereliction of duty by the
State Government and lack of maintenance, equipment worth crores are rusting away while
about 100 institutions are unable to enjoy the benefits of EDUSAT.[9]

In view of addressing these issues, it is not only desirable, but necessary for a large number of
private players to enter the market. This can happen only if private individuals and entities find
the market attractive enough with support from the government, which can promise them
effective regulation and licensing, if not the technology, for conducting space activities.

One of the other fundamental issues which still raises concern relates to the prosecution for
violation of any policy, particularly in the event that the latter results in no wrongful losse or
gain. One classic illustration of this situation could be the much scandalized Antrix-Devas deal,
where officials flouted the SATCOM policy and the guidelines set by the ITU (International
Telecommunication Union) and the Department of Space, GoI in order to provide Devas
Multimedia (a Bengaluru-based private multimedia company) with a wrongful gain of Rs. 578
crore, attracting charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.[10] This case raised a very pertinent question surrounding the uncertainty of
prosecution of defaulters had there been no wrongful gains made out to Devas.

Another example could be the one when Intelsat was allotted an orbital slot (meant only for
Indian satellites) in blatant violation of the SATCOM policy and the ITU Radio Regulations
(1995), and other than a reprimand from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the issue
did not receive much heed.[11] Corruption and scams of any magnitude are potent enough to
scuttle the growth of any new ambitious project and their impact must not be underestimated.
With India treading on the path of developing new technologies and infrastructure for its
ambitious pursuits of space use and exploration, it is only necessary that it has its own domestic
laws and regulations in place which are in tune with the international space treaties and
conventions.

[1] F Tronchetti, ‘National Space Legislation’ Fundamental of Space Law and

Policy (SpringerBriefs in Space Development
2013) https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKE
wjhs87Pt43NAhVCm5QKHeXoBPEQFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2
Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9781461478690-
c2.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1404736-p175166507&usg=AFQjCNH2gukdItfR5yVv577VE-
GoVxY3QA&cad=rja

[2] Indulekha Aravind, ‘Dhruva’s big leap opens private sector to space’ (Business Standard, 12
January 2015) http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/Dhruvaa-s-big-leap-opens-
private-sector-to-space-115011100794_1.html

[3] TV Ramachandaran, ‘TV Ramachndaran: Satellite communication can drive the broadband
revolution’ (Business Standard, 23 April 2016) http://www.business-
standard.com/article/opinion/t-v-ramachandran-satellite-communications-can-drive-the-
broadband-revolution-116042300748_1.html

[4] Prashanti Upadhyaya, ‘Necessity for the enactment of space law in India’ (Legal India, 18
March 2016) http://www.legalindia.com/necessity-enactment-space-law-india/

[5] ibid.

[6] Suchi Bansal, ‘Capacity crunch May affect DTH

expansion’ http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/bSaFgLb9PjI6BZIrE26CwO/Capacity-crunch-
may-affect-DTH-expansion.html

[7] ‘DTH satellite services: Department of space lost out to foreign players’ (The Hindu Business
Line, 28 November 2014) http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/dth-satellite-services-
dept-of-space-lost-out-to-foreign-players/article6644047.ece

[8] Ajey Lele, ‘GSAT-12: Boosting transponder demand’ (Institute of Defence Studies and
Analyses, 19 July
2011) http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/GSAT12BoostingTransponderDemand_alele_190711%
20
[9] Mukeet Akmali, ‘ISRO’s EDUSAT not functioning for two years’ (Greater Kashmir, 2 July
2014) http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/business/isro-s-edusat-not-functioning-for-2-
years/173343.html

[10] Amitabh Sinha, ‘Story of a Rs. 4000 crore fiasco at ISRO’ (The Indian Express, 8 October
2015) http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/antrix-devas-the-story-of-a-rs-4400-cr-fiasco-
at-isro/

[11] ‘CAG raps ISRO for allowing foreign satellites in Indian orbital slot’ (Zee News, 6
September 2013) http://zeenews.india.com/news/space/cag-raps-isro-for-allowing-foreign-
satellites-in-indian-orbit-slot_874694.html

Is Law a Science?

Article by Utkarsh Agarwal

A couple of days ago, I came across a question on Quora: “Is Law a science?”

It is a clichéd question with several ways to approach to it. In my enthusiasm, I wrote an answer
about how the facts of an individual case shape the law and there is no one fixed hypothesis that
governs the functioning of law, and therefore, law is not a science.

However, upon thinking further, I feel there is something wrong with this picture, more
specifically, the concept of law as fluid with ever-changing characteristics in consonance with
the changes in society.

Law has changed; there is no denying that. For example, adultery laws have become much more
relaxed as the society has come to tolerate it. Even the fundamental laws have also undergone
significant change over time such as the right to property in India went from being a fundamental
right to a legal right and the right to education, right to environment, right to life with dignity all
becoming a part of the fundamental right. In fact, there are innumerable instances of the Supreme
Court or the High Courts altering the law through interpretation, or judicial activism.

However, all this is based on the idea of law limited to rules and regulations framed by the
Government. In my opinion, we must consider Law as an objective phenomenon existing
independently of the society much like gravity or relativity in science. Here it is important to
differentiate my stand from the notion of political liberalism, that is, basic universal human
rights. I rather argue for reductionism. What I propose is much more radical and presumptuous:
In nature, exists a single unalterable legal system for all of mankind. Law stems from morality;
that is to say, every single piece of legislation should ideally be framed with an underlying moral
purpose. Therefore, essentially, there is an objective morality somewhat along the lines of the
Ten Commandments or, more appropriately, “The Supreme Principle of Morality”.

Globally, we see a movement toward similar political systems, economic policies, cultural and
religious discourses, consequently culminating in increasing uniformity of laws. Further, the
development of International Law also fosters the integration of different legal systems.
Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that we are moving towards a single legal system.

The argument for the unalterable aspect is grounded in reductionism. Here we can rely upon the
idea of ‘reason’ as an objective concept as argued by Kant. As the society develops we shall
gravitate towards simpler principles and a clearer understanding of rights and obligation until we
finally reach the minimum set of principles, the point of ideality. The law developed based on
principles at the point of ideality is the objective unalterable Law.

Once the existence of a single objective unalterable Law is accepted as the fundamental premise,
all changes in the present law may be deemed to be an attempt to the discovery of the final Law.
Thus any present piece of law is merely a hypothesis, which is tested in a practical environment.
If the hypothesis remains unaltered with the growth of society, it is a part of the final Law
otherwise it is disregarded when it comes in conflict with the development of society. Therefore,
Law is a science.

It is essential to note here that the idea of a final Law does not, by any stretch of imagination
attempts to indicate the content of the final Law as the entire argument is limited to the form of
the final Law. Further, it is perfectly plausible that the society might undergo retrogressive
transformation like Afghanistan with Taliban. However, the reliance is upon the long-term
rationality of mankind. While I recognize that it is difficult to either prove or disprove the
concept of a final Law, I believe it should be afforded the same credibility as the concept of law
as fluid.
Justice for Sale: A Broken Legal System

Article by Ashwin Misra

The Indian Constitution backed by a jurisprudence that is unmatched guarantees equal protection
of rights to every citizen. But the real situation is a different story. George Orwell was not wrong
in saying that some men are more equal than others – the poor keep toiling to be heard when
justice (fabricated or real) comes effortlessly to those who have their coffers full.

An equal dispensation of justice is one of the basics tenets of the Indian legal system. In the
words of Justice Krishna Iyer, “An equal and even handed justice has been a cherished ideal of
administration of justice since the dawn of civilization”. In Magna Carta, the womb of common
law, it is stated, “To no man will we deny, to no man will we sell, or delay justice right”. Sadly,
the current situation is a poor testament to the stated ideal. It is only the idealists and the naïve
who think that the Indian judiciary and legal system is incorruptible. The stark reality of the day
is that the base nature of human psyche has infested the system. The lofty ideals of justice,
fairness and equity have been lost somewhere in the ignominy of time, and human greed has
corrupted the guardians of justice.

Availing justice in India is a highly exhausting and costly endeavour. The legal system behaves
almost as if it does not want to execute the task it was made for in the first place. It has been
reduced to being an extremely slow and inefficient machinery because of which the poor suffer
unimaginably. Courts take an indefinitely long amount of time to dispose off cases due to
lengthy procedures and more so due to their sheer amount. William Penn, an English
philosopher, gave the expression “to delay justice is injustice”. This statement holds true for
victims in cases where the courts take decades to arrive at a decision. A recent example is the
much publicized and infamous hit-and-run case of the Bollywood superstar Salman Khan. The
case had a painfully slow pace and the family of the victim strongly felt that the conviction of the
superstar could not make any difference for them as too much time had elapsed.

The meaning of the word ‘justice’, as it was originally meant to be, had nothing to do with
money. Justice Blackmun clearly says, “The concept of seeking justice cannot be equated with
the value of dollars. Money plays no role in seeking justice.” But unfortunately, avarice has
turned even this sacrosanct value into a commodity that could be bought and sold. Corruption is
a problem that plagues the nation severely and if not treated in time, will effectively destroy it.
The system as it exists today is such that it can be easily influenced if the person who demands
justice has deep enough pockets. This slows down an already leaden-footed and time-consuming
system. According to Former Chief Justice of India, V.N. Khare, corruption and bribery are
rampant in the lower judiciary. A question that rises here is that who shall watch the watchmen?

Lawyers and advocates, who have been entrusted with the task of helping the court in expediting
the process of justice delivery, rather resort to delaying tactics such as bribing the prosecutor to
work in their favour in criminal cases. This breed of greedy men can be easily classified under
two categories – one who actually work but charge very high rates from their clients and the
second who just dupe their clients to make quick bucks. The poor or even the middle class
cannot afford the former category and thus a large majority sticks with the latter. The top 20 to
30 lawyers in Delhi, for example, charge no less than Rs. 5 lakh for a five-minute hearing
besides other things like business class airfare and the cost of staying in the best hotels from their
clients. It is true that there is nothing in the Advocates Act of 1961 or any other statute or rule
book for that matter that puts a limit on how much a lawyer can charge as their fee, and it is quiet
fantastical when one gets to know the real figures.

Such extortionate rates charged by lawyers have put access to justice and the legal system out of
the reach of the majority of Indian populace. This situation becomes staggeringly more
horrifying when we look at the people who need the legal system the most – the impoverished,
the downtrodden, the helpless, the unknowing and unwitting are the ones who need the most
guidance and support, but even they are cheated by small-time lawyers who live off these poor
souls. The people I am talking about here are the poor bystanders, the impoverished ones without
a shirt on their back or a roof over their heads. Yes, I am talking about the ones who are forced to
sleep on pavements. They are the ones who have to painfully suffer the denial of justice. The
upper class and the super-rich on the other hand are beyond the law in several respects. They
always seem to have the requisite influence to minimize the probability of ever seeing the insides
of a prison cell.

After a considerable period of time, the struggle for justice seems futile. People die feeling that
they have lost most part of their lives in court corridors, in public offices with their doors shut, in
front of the shamelessly smirking lawyers. It is heart-breaking to see how the system is failing
us. Justice R.S. Lodhi, former judge of the Delhi High Court rightly remarked, “A man with
means can secure his liberty and a man without means cannot”.