The acquittal of Manu Sharma in the Jessica Lal murder case had turned the spotlight on the Judicial system of the country and its open trading in a Dalal Street of a different kind. The heat was on. And for once the hunter was being the hunted what with candle light vigils and soul stirring debates on our national character.

In all this emotionally charged debate, one thing which stood out was that everybody was convinced about the guilt of the accused. He was condemned in the court of public by the anchorpersons of various dime-a-dozen news channels where the prosecutor, the defense, the judge and the jury was the same person. ‘Guilty as charged’ verdict was pronounced by our mediamen who were not in the court, did not read all the documents, did not listen to the court proceedings. But they were convinced. I too was convinced.

Enter Ram Jethmalani, the lawyer who takes his job of defending his clients seriously. A bit too seriously perhaps. Or else all of a sudden the innuendos and the Bordello issue would not have cropped up as also the fact of some other person being the murderer. The media hype surrounding this case makes him angry that the judges are being prejudiced and an a priori presumption of guilt is being fed into the judicial minds. He wants to fight it also because he thinks that just because Manu Sharma happens to be influential, he should not be disadvantaged.

Finally justice has been done. Manu Sharma has been convicted. And we should hope that he is convicted of the crime he committed rather than for any other reason such as witch hunting by the media or paradoxically disadvantaged position due to his connection with the high and mighty.

But there are certain feelings of unease. Too much power is being given to the media and a trial of a different kind is then carried on and on in the name of national debate. And before you realize, a firm opinion has been reached about the guilt or innocence of the accused which would be very difficult for the judges to disregard. This certainly is a very dangerous trend. In this case, media was on our side. But what if the media is wrong? When one of them is involved?

The second point which makes me uneasy is related to the limits to which a lawyer can go (stoop) to defend his clients. Is casting aspersions on the character of a dead person to get some breathing space in legalese acceptable? Is the lawyer sworn to the truth or to the client? Do the dead have a right to decency and claims of defamation? What is the social responsibility of the prominent men and women of our country? Has Ram Jethmalani acted honourably or he has misused the prominence given to him by people like us?

I am also as confused as most of us are. I just hope that when the curtains come down on this case, this is also the curtains for the questionable conduct of our prominent people. Or we never know long after we are gone, our names would also be mud. As it is, we have already traversed the downhill moral path of Hey Ram to Hai Ram!

Mr.Mulliner