It is his freedom to express his views but his views need not necessarily be correct or an widely accepted view , why should it not be considered as a precedent? just because government feel unsecured it shall not lose it’s value. In a democracy a legitimate people movement shall ought to be respected and demands to be fulfilled.
Now, lawyers can practise, as a matter of right, in all courts and forums, including tribunals or any quasi-judicial authority.Fifty years after the Advocates Act, 1961, came into force, the Centre has notified Section 30 of the Act — with effect from June 15 2011 — to enable advocates to practise anywhere. This provision was not notified when the Act was added to the statute book. As a result, in certain courts and tribunals, lawyers could appear only if they were permitted by the presiding officer.
For some strange reason, this Section 30 was not notified for the last fifty years. The Government has issued a notification last week appointing June 15 2011 as the date from which this section will come into force.
The long-pending demand of lawyers for notifying this Section was fulfilled, thanks to Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily’s initiative.
Section 30 says: “Subject to the provisions of this Act, every advocate shall be entitled as of right to practise throughout the territories to which this Act extends; in all courts including the Supreme Court; before any tribunal or person legally authorised to take evidence; and before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under any law for the time being in force entitled to practise.”
In an interaction earlier this month with The Hindu, Mr. Moily said he would take immediate steps to get Section 30 notified.
The government issued the Gazette Notification on June 9. It said: “The Central government hereby appoints June 15, 2011 as the date on which Section of the Advocates Act shall come into force.”
India being a democratic country has a process of electing the members to the legislative assembly through elections. These elected members are the representatives of the civil society. In the recent past there is birth of a new class of civil society representation mostly consisting of social activist. This representation is though for a special purpose, it seems like special purpose company. This new class of civil society representation though was not elected, but commands a huge support from the public especially from middle income group and younger Indian generation. The purpose for the new class of civil society representation is to fight against corruption and first step being to draft a strong lokpal bill. Government due to intense pressure from the public accepted the new form of civil society representation and agreed to give limited power in the drafting committee.
Now in India there are two class of civil society representative, one is of course making an issue based representation. The newly formed representation from the civil society is more focused on the issue and takes all rational and possible step to achieve the special purpose (in the current case it’s lokpal bill) but the elected government remains uncommitted for a strong lokpal and often causes lot of distractions. on this we can say unelected representative are more focused and committed compared to the elected representatives.
The elected representatives by accepting the new civil society representation feel very unsecured and want to suppress the civil society representation and on the other hand the focused civil society working towards a successful mission and also wants set a strong precedent for the future. there is clearly an great difference of intension. It would be difficult for both to work together, it’s clear mismarriage between the two.
Of course necessity are mother of all invention, now what is the necessity for the parallel people presentation in a democracy. The only reason could be that the people have lost the faith in the government so much that they have supported a group to form a new civil society representation. Government in the recent protest by baba ramdev, did explain the country about it intention and it’s action for recovering the black money but cry conspiracy. This ia very clear sign that government is inefficient and lacks trust so it’s nature that any group or person raising the voice against the government would be supported. It’s the failure of the elected representative has led to the birth of a new class of civil society.
The current issues that are taken up by the civil society are larger issue like corruption, black money etc. The elected government would do everything to stop the civil society from achieving it’s goal because if civil society achieve it then it would expose the inefficiency of the government so the government could very well prolong it so that nothing really happens and but will certainly show as if it’s serious and working towards it. The civil society representative can help for change of guard at the centre but Presently in India is a literally have no good alternative so therefore even if there is change in the guard, there could be very less action. special purpose representative is good and effective for smaller issue like construction bridge, demanding reliefs etc and can see an immediate solution. when a larger issues like corruption and better governance taken up the solution cannot be reached in a short period and also a lot of elected representative will be badly affected so a immediate or solution cannot reached and civil society representation will mostly fail.
CNN-IBN has reported that kapil sibal said “ swami who teaches yoga asanas to the country shouldn't teach political asanas” and the mid night arrest followed it… is it democratic?, well many have argued that by going on a fast one is actually holding the government for a ransom and is undemocratic… well now government has arrested and charged a person for rioting but actually he was peacefully protesting. Many of those who have looted the nation’s wealth remain free without any charge being framed against them but a person who is protesting peacefully and well with in his legal rights being charged with rioting is mockery of democracy.
Well, regarding kapil sibal’s statement, when an Advocate like him can take up politics, why should not a yoga guru take up politics or does he not have the right hold a peaceful demonstration against the government which is in his opinion inefficient in tackling the corruption and black money issue. A Lawyer cum minister making such irresponsible statement is never a welcomed one at any point of time.
