If Rajeev Dhavan is not a journalist, nor a lawyer, what is he?

Rajeev Dhavan is a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court. He is as 'true' to his profession as all famous lawyers from Jethmalani downward have been professing to be. They address each other as 'My Learned Colleague' and then start demolishing every one of the opponent's arguments, one by one till the list is finished. But do they swear to uphold 'truth'? Never! Their uncrowned professional hero Jethmalani whenever asked why did he represent admittedly known criminals replied in his highfalutin words that lawyers like him were 'duty bound' to represent their clients, irrespective of whether they were guilty or not guilty! What they openly do not admit, but is known to everybody is, these people never hesitate for a moment to coach their clients what to say and what not to say in court, not for upholding truth, not even law, but only to get the client acquitted. What not they do! They interpret law selectively, help falsifying documents, suppress evidence, browbeat the other side and judges by unnecessary adjournments, the list is endless. They are so fair to their clients that they charge per appearance hundreds of thousand rupees even if  their case is adjourned unheard! And they charge not one, but many clients  like that every day. They charge their clients per hour of studying the case, fees for assistants, etc. Imagine your milkman charging you for the milk and also for the time he spent on coming to deliver it!

Rajeev Dhavan is one of such lawyers. So firstly do not expect him to says something in favour of his client,  he will put in a word for the opposite view! Thank God there were no courts or advocates during the period of Ramayan. Otherwise these guys would have got a clean acquittal for Ravana for the 'alleged' kidnapping of Sita by not mentioning a word about Dharma but by keep on harping about the rights of a demon king to do what he pleases!

Now let's see what he has to say against the present strict laws of defamation and free speech. To make it easy for you to understand I am quoting his words in italics.

In the very first sentence he makes a statement without any proof! December has been a cruel month for free speech. He starts giving examples from the past decade and before when Supreme Court dismissed some cases which go to prove his case. Anyone will think   the SC decided in favour of his side in ALL the cases, because he does not list a single case where the offender was found guilty! First example of his 'fairness'!

All famous lawyers start their infancy by reading "How to Win Friends and Influence People." See how what a good start he is having by dropping big and famous names of great authors, cine actresses, foreigners (He knows Indians love anything foreign!), and to sound 'secular' the name of a Muslim too, adding an emotional expression about how he was driven out of the country to die abroad! "The stories are endless as India's increasingly intolerant society allows HIndu fundamentalists to threaten those they don't like with impunity." But still not a single recent case has been cited. He only makes some passing references to party goondas closing cinemas!

On the other hand if anyone was having a field day with freedom of speech, it was the pesstitute media and the opposition party in Lok Sabha which managed for the second time to waste the whole session of Parliament!

Next he impresses you with his erudition by quoting again old cases and law in the second paragraph which is totally irrelevant. What is interesting is he equates the world famous artist M.F. Hussain, whose art works sell for millions of dollars (you heard it right! dollars!) and who was known as the Picasso of India and who was awarded Padma Vibhushan, with Teesta Setelvad who is out on bail in a criminal case and dodging the courts from proceeding further! This is the level of fairness of our learned senior advocate Dhavan! Still there is no recent incidents to quote where free speech has been thwarted without recourse.

In the next para, he trots out names of those who irrelevantly and habitually and for political reasons keep filing cases against other politicians. What freedom of speech has to do with it? Further if you take Dhavan seriously, he is telling "the great leader Subramanian Swamy" is right in bringing suits against so many vips; don't laugh he finds for even Arvind Kejriwal as a victim of Gadkari and Amit Sibal, while the cases are still pending in court! Only an emotionally driven lawyer who substitutes emotion for facts, will find fault with even a judge. Example: Although many proceedings were stopped by the court, the Supreme Court (Justices Mishra and Pant) showed incredible indecisiveness. Months have passed since the judgment was reserved.

In the next paragraph Dhavan gives an unsolicited advice! How could a lawyer, yes, LAWYER could do it, i.e. giving unsolicited advice and that too without any fees! Should be business is very dull nowadays that Congress is not in power!

The article also ends where it started, without giving cogent argument but only just vomiting what others had said which are mostly irrelevant. Throughout this article I was searching for only one thing I expected from an honest lawyer. An intelligent lawyer. I thought at least once Dhavan will say right to free speech also entails the responsibility to respect the freedom of others. It also implies fairness in points raised, it expects you not to prejudice your point by embellishing it with unrelated quotes, incidents, history, etc., it expects you not to influence the minds of those whom you address by name dropping and other  popular methods.  I was disappointed.