By Kumkum Chadha
Had Justice Yashwant Varma not resigned recently, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra would have earned the distinction of being the only lawyer to have handled three impeachment cases. It may be one short but that in no way undermines the range, prowess, legal skill and expertise of Luthra who is currently a sought-after lawyer.
For record, Justice Varma, a High Court judge, was facing removal proceedings following discovery of sacks of charred currency notes in the outhouse of his official residence in New Delhi. The Rs 15 crore-odd currency was discovered when a fire broke out and fire tenders were pressed into service. Justice Varma was then serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
Even while he denied any wrongdoing, Justice Varma was transferred to Allahabad High Court even as an inquiry committee was set up to probe the allegations. Following the findings of the committee which had recommended removal proceedings, the then Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, wrote to the president of India seeking Varma’s removal. Even while he was facing removal proceedings in parliament, Justice Varma resigned.
But back to Luthra and the impeachment cases he has handled.
Luthra was government counsel to assist the Judges Inquiry Committee to investigate allegations of misbehaviour against Justice Soumitra Sen. In another impeachment proceeding, Luthra defended Justice Gangele, who was accused of sexual harassment. On whether he should have sided with the victim instead of the accused, Luthra said, in an interview to a national daily, recently: “I have always believed that in a civilized society, in a system which is governed by rule of law everybody has the right to be represented. The day we as lawyers start making a value judgment…if I make a value judgment and feel someone is guilty, I have no right to represent that person…but then everyone deserves a chance and, in my life, I have followed that credo throughout. In my professional life I have represented questionable organizations, I have represented people who may be accused of the most heinous of crimes, but then I have also appeared for the Nirbhaya case for the state.”
There are two takeaways from this: a disturbing one in the Nirbhaya case and perhaps a learning from some of the cases he has fought on behalf of the accused, particularly in a sexual harassment case. “It pains me when people ask: ‘How can you do this?’ My point is that everybody is entitled under the Constitution to a fair defence and the day we give a go by to this principle that would be the end of the justice delivery system. As long as you play by the rules and work according to the law and the procedures, give the accused a fair defence… otherwise if we were to take the sensitivity to a level then the moment there is an allegation of sexual harassment or impropriety, you might as well lock the person and throw away the key,” Luthra said.
Ask him that by that measure would he have fought for and defended terrorist Ajmal Kasab and Luthra said: “Yes I would have. Had I been asked to represent him I would have represented him”.
Luthra is among those who fought for wildlife poacher, among India’s biggest, Sansar Chand. “I used to do a lot of wildlife cases, not only for Sansar Chand, but also many others. At that point I also needed the money. Sansar Chand was a mid-level guy and one who became a superstar, if I may use the term. He couldn’t even write his name, but a fascinating chap, simple and rustic. He was actually not a poacher himself, but a trader. He would trade in skins and bones. Somewhere along the way, China became the importer of tiger bones. So, more than the skin, the value lay in the bones. Here I must share an anecdote that a client told me and he said that look we don’t have enough tiger bones to send out, so what we do is we take buffalo bones, put them in water, actually in chai ka paani, to get the hue so there is one portion of tiger bones and four portions of buffalo bones… so actually, milawat but in India that is the norm”.
However, in later years the “everyone needs to be defended” spiel underwent a dramatic change. Ask Luthra if he would defend the likes of Sansar Chand today and it is a flat “no”. “From 2012 till now, I spent a lot of time in the hills and my passion for forests and wildlife has made me change my views. Therefore now, I would represent people and issues which are connected with protecting the environment and wildlife. I would rather use my legal skills to follow a passion. Once I am following that passion, I think defending people on the other side is not the ethical thing to do particularly if my heart is not there”.
By this logic, if Sansar Chand were alive and requested Luthra to represent him it would be, as Luthra said a flat “no”, yet again. Like it would be to anyone targeting wildlife and animals. “Everyone has a right to change one’s perspective,” Luthra said.
Even though he succeeded in the Nirbhaya case and the accused were awarded maximum punishment, there was a pain, rather than the “joy” of winning. Luthra explained: “What troubled me was that when the death penalty was announced there was an uproar in the crowd, and that was something that disturbed me. People started clapping and cheering. It was a serious moment because three people were being hanged. We cannot be so blood thirsty.” He regretted that a poignant moment transformed into one of jubilation.
Luthra is among those who has handled several cases for politicians: Former chief ministers Arvind Kejriwal, Prakash Singh Badal and Chandrababu Naidu who was then not in power.
The late Arun Jaitley, then Union minister, had sued Kejriwal for defamation. Luthra had then advised Jaitley not to file the defamation suit, but Jaitley was adamant. Despite reservations, Luthra filed a criminal defamation case against Kejriwal on grounds of false accusations of corruption in the Delhi Cricket Association and Jaitley benefiting from it. The case was ultimately dropped after Kejriwal tendered an unconditional apology. Luthra recalled: “I was on the other side and despite the spat between Jaitley and Kejriwal, it was Kejriwal who later cleared substantial bills that had been pending for years when the AAP came to power in Punjab”.
During the Congress regime Luthra had represented the state government in several cases. As a result, money was due to him, but remained unpaid. After AAP came to power, Luthra spoke to Kejriwal who had the “stuck and unpaid bills cleared within one week”.
Two politicians, a former chief minister and a former Union minister told Luthra that if they have to go to jail, so be it, but not the children: “It was 2003 when I started interacting with Prakash Singh Badal when they had trouble with the Congress government. When I told him that he would have to surrender before the court, his statement was that ‘I have been to jail and spent 17 years there; my worry is Sukhbir’.” In other words, “save my son from being jailed”.
Ditto a former chief minister’s wife, also from Punjab, who was less worried about her husband being jailed, but more concerned about her son being put behind bars: “She was focused completely on her son,” Luthra recalled even as she extracted a reluctant promise from him that her son “will be alright”.
Badal was also among those who would send several clients to Luthra: “Badal sahib did not remember my name, but passed off my phone number to many of his contacts and friends and say go to that jawan vakeel, (young lawyer) and tell him Badal sahib has sent me,” Luthra recalled.
Years have passed since then, Luthra has greyed, but the memories are still alive and fresh.
—The writer is an author, journalist and political commentator
The post The Lawyer Who Defended Everyone—Till He Himself Drew the Line appeared first on India Legal.