In India, maybe across the world also, we have been witnessing that the law students are turning themselves towards the corporate field mostly. This might also be because of the changing situations and conditions across the globe and the needs of society as well. But, recently, one of the sitting judges in the Supreme Court has opined that the law students should give back to society by preparing themselves as paralegal volunteers, which would be in the same manner as that of the students of medicines who intern in the rural areas as a matter of compulsion. It is Honorable Justice UU Lalit who opined the same.
This article, even though, will not look into the opinion of the honorable Justice deeply, look into the background of Justice Lalit along with some of the important cases that were dealt with by Justice Lalit.
Justice UU Lalit and his Early Life:
Let us look into the background of Justice Lalit. Justice Udhay Umesh Lalit is not a first-generation lawyer, which means there was another person who had been serving as a lawyer before him in his family. Yes, Justice Lalit’s father, Mr. U R Lalit, was also serving as a counsel in the Supreme Court of India and was also an additional judge during his tenure.
Justice Lalit was practicing in the supreme court of India after he joined the Bar association in Bombay High Court in the year 1983. He started his Supreme Court practice in 1986, which is three years after serving in Bombay High Court. Between the years from 1986 to 1992, he had an opportunity to work with Mr. Soli Sorabjee, who was the former Attorney General for India. Later in the year 2004, which is after serving and practicing for around a decade in the Supreme Court of India as an advocate, Justice Lalit became senior counsel in the Supreme Court of India. His advocacy skills, such as preparation and patience while arguing, were applauded by the Press Trust of India in the year 2014. It was also noted that justice Lalit appeared before the supreme court of India for many clients who included many film actors and other politicians in the country.
One of such high-profile cases was with respect to the current Home Minister of India in the fake encounter case of Sohrabuddin and Tulsiram, for which Justice appeared as a lawyer for Amit Shah.
Also, in the year 2011, Justice Uday Lalit was appointed as a special public prosecutor for CBI in the famous 2G Spectrum case that happened during that period of UPI’s government.
Justice Lalit as Supreme Court Judge:
Having been appointed as Supreme Court judge in the year 2014, Justice Lalit refused to hear many cases then he heard. This is because he had the opportunity to represent any of the parties to those recused cases that came before him.
A few of such instances include, in 2017, was in the Suryanelli rape case, where he served as an advocate for those who were accused in that case earlier. Another essential instance was in 2018 when he recused the case of the Malegaon blast case, in which he refused to hear the plea of the accused persons.
Lastly and most importantly, his recuse in the Ayodhya Land Dispute case in the year 2019. These are some of the instances where he was recused because of the presence of a conflict of interests with those cases.
Significant Cases of Justice Udhay Lalit:
- One of the notable and important decisions of the Supreme Court was delivered in Shayara Bano v. UOI (2016) in August 2017. The writ petition, along with five other petitions, was heard and concluded by a five-judge constitutional bench, which also comprised Justice UU Lalit. He, along with former Justice Nariman and Former Justice Kurian Joseph, gave the majority opinion of 3:2. They opined that the practice of Talaq is solely regulated by the Muslim personal law act of 1937, and if this is in contradiction to the principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution and if it serves any arbitrariness, then the same shall be struck down and hence the practice was held unconstitutional in nature.
- In Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand case in 2018, Justice Lalit, along with Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Joseph, held that the migrant laborers from other states, who works in any state other than their native state, shall not be regarded as the scheduled caste just because of the fact that the state makes that caste or has specified that caste as a scheduled caste within that state. They are migrant laborers only, and those rules will not apply to those laborers.
- In the Sunitha v. State of Telangana case in 2017, where the issue arose with respect to the claim of fees by the advocates, and the same was challenged by the petitioner. Justice Lalit along with Justice AK Goel opined that the lawyer’s fee as an advocate should not be fixed as per their percentage of marks or based on the amount of degree shall be void and would be against the principles of natural justice. Thus, they held that such would cause professional misconduct.
- Also, in the Kashinath Mahajan case of 2018, Justice Lalit, along with Justice Goel, ruled some guidelines for reducing the misuse of the Scheduled Caste and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act. It included the directions to investigative officers before filing an FIR for the cases dealing under the act; secondly, there should be an approval received for the furtherance of the case, and lastly, enabling the option of anticipatory bail under the provisions of the act.
These are some of the important cases that have been heard and concluded by Justice Lalit so far. It has been reported and believed that Justice Lalit will assume the office of Chief Justice of India from 2022.
Conclusion:
Justice Lalit’s specialization in the area of criminal law must have given him the opportunity to appear as counsel for many criminal law victims as well as for the accused. This must also be the reason for which he had opined a statement last week asking the law students to perform and give back to the society similar to medical students. This kind of practice and push is very important in a system like India, where the rich are getting richer, and the poor are becoming poorer. Thus, importance should also be given to these societal matters as lawyers have the greater responsibility of social engineering.
