Fitness of Advocate - Should Bar Council Test?
WHAT do you do if you find that your advocate has not presented your case properly before the Court?
In a recent case before the Supreme Court, the accused had pleaded that his counsel was not competent and had not effectively cross-examined the witnesses. He had changed his lawyer and wanted to recall the witness who had been earlier cross examined.
The Supreme Court made some interesting observations:
++ It can hardly be gainsaid that fair trial is a part of guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
++ It is further well settled that fairness of trial has to be seen not only from the point of view of the accused, but also from the point of view of the victim and the society.
++ In the name of fair trial, the system cannot be held to ransom.
++ The interest of justice may suffer if the counsel conducting the trial is physically or mentally unfit on account of any disability. The interest of the society is paramount and instead of trials being conducted again on account of unfitness of the counsel, reform may appear to be necessary so that such a situation does not arise. Perhaps time has come to review the Advocates Act and the relevant Rules to examine the continued fitness of an advocate to conduct a criminal trial on account of advanced age or other mental or physical infirmity, to avoid grievance that an Advocate who conducted trial was unfit or incompetent. This is an aspect which needs to be looked into by the concerned authorities including the Law Commission and the Bar Council of India.