Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Shri. Ram Jethmalani | SASTRA University | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Shri. Ram Jethmalani
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
This content is a transcript of the 12th Nani Palkhivala Memorial Lecture, delivered by Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani, focusing on constitutionalism in criminal jurisprudence and the enduring relevance of the Indian Constitution.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
[Music]
Namaste and a very good morning, good
afternoon to everybody present here. A
great legal luminary once said,
"Democracy without education is
hypocrisy without limitation." This
great legal luminary crusade against
black money and epidome of criminal
Jewish prudence is present amongst us
today and is none other than senior
advocate and former union minister Shri
My name is Harikar Nessen pursuing my
fourth year at BBLLB and today we have
all gathered here to educate ourselves
on constitutionalism in criminal jurist
prudence. As a part of the 12th Nani
Paliwala memorial lecture delivered by
the living legend himself. I now call
upon Prashna Sununda thirdyear
mechanical to invoke the blessings of
the Lord Almighty. I request everybody
dream. My dream. [Music]
Thank you, Prasa. Now, I'd like to call
upon Amrit Park, fourth year of BLB to
Rare and inspiring is this verdict of
providence that I must with great
happiness and an equal measure of
trepidation try to introduce an epic
odyssey of one of the brightest jewels
of this
country. Sri Ram Jet Malani was born on
14th September 1923 to Sri Bulchan
Gurmukdas and Shrimati Parbati Jet
Malani in Sind undivided British India.
At school itself he secured a double
promotion and metriculated at the young
age of 13. He was educated at the SC
Shahani Law College Karachi and moved to
India after partition starting his
career as a professor of law in Karachi.
He was later associated with Allah Bhak
Karim Brohi who later became the high
commissioner for Pakistan and India in
legal practice and moved to India in
February 1948. He proved his medal
during the formative and nent years of
criminal jurist prudence in India in KM
Nawavati's case where he appeared
alongside Yashwantra Vishnu Chandraur
who later served India as the longest as
the longest serving chief justice in
1953 he took up teaching at the
government law college Pune a career
studied with the choicest embellishments
of all walks of life he started
appearing in several landmark cases
concerning some nuanced and intricate
questions in criminal law. In Ker
Singh's case, he defended the assassins
of the late Inda Pradar Shinani Gandhi
and in later times also accepted briefs
for Hajjim Mastan and Dawud Ibrahim. The
1970s saw a more tumultous phase of his
career in national politics where from
1977 to 1980 he was member of the sixth
Lok Sabha and also served as a member of
the seventh Lok Sabha. Numerous terms in
the Rajya Sabha and was nominated as
member of numerous select and standing
parliamentary committees and was
recently reelected to the Rajya Sabha in
August 2011.
Blazing like the pole star in the legal
firmament. The 1970s were momentous
years including the judgment in Adam
Jabalpur after which he left India for a
brief while file. In later times he
appeared in Indra sahani's case where he
commented all human beings are not born
equal and are raised in unequal
environments and then in supreme court
advocates on record association where he
assiduously contended that sovereignity
in a sense rested in the judges of the
realm. And we in Tamil Nadu cannot
forget when he came for Prehmanandanda's
case which happened not far from here.
His life has been an eternal saga in the
commitment to constitutional ideals.
Apart from his illustrious career
spanning teaching, practice and
governance. His proono consciousness is
reflected in the fact that 90% of his
practice is totally free of cost. His
name is now legend. A household profile
of great admiration. Truly the high
point of a celebrated life. He has
significantly contributed to the
educational landscape of India as
professor the national law school of
India University Bangalore and now as
professor emiritus the symbiosis law
school pune. He also served as a me he
has also served as a member of the world
peace through law center and was part of
the international bar association from
1966. His writings reveal a rich
repertoire of political science so
social social and cultural
understandings. In the Sunday Guardian,
he washed with cynical acid the
contemporary real politic. The speed and
int he said the speed and intensity with
which religion is spilling over
political and social space across the
world is startling. The wheel is turning
full circle just when we thought we had
left religious fanaticism and religious
wars far behind us in history. And it is
indeed ironic that religion seems to
have become the signature of this young
21st century that held so much
civilizational promise for democracy and
secularism. His profound opinion on the
proposed NJSC was a virtual diet tribe.
The constitution cannot survive. Human
freedom cannot survive. Citizens human
rights cannot survive. And no
development can take place unless of
course the judges are independent.
Elsewhere he said very memorably, we
must not return to an era where a person
becomes judge not by knowing the law but
by knowing the law
minister. an acclaimed voice in the
defense of the constitution in logical
connect 2013 on the national judicial
appointments commission. He appealed to
the rule of reason which he said would
supersede beyond blind belief.
Unsurpassed by sheer judicial wisdom
which in his case has outlived the
seventh age. And as the senior most
member of the Indian bar, he is to us
the chief justice of the supreme court
of conscience in the grand chamber of public
public [Applause]
[Applause]
opinion. And it is only in the fitness
of things that he must deliver the 12th
Nani Pala memorial lecture at Sastra
University in the memory of an immortal
gem of the Indian legal profession. For
Nani G the constitution was the first
article of faith and the last brick of
his creed and the constitution matters
for in it is centered politics. It
matters for in it lies the flesh and
bones of the law. It matters for its
preamble vision of the syncratic
heritage of inclusivist governance. It
matters for in it lies the idea of
justice and it matters for in it lies
the collective future of the nation. The
experience of ages and its theme song is
the rule of law, the universal
presumption of innocence which Lord
Bingham wrote that it is repugnant to
ordinary notions of fairness for a
prosecutor to accuse a defendant of
crime and for the defendant to be
required to disprove the accusation on
the pain of conviction and punishment.
And if he fails to do so and now we are
years waiting to hear from years of
illuminating experience and it is a
dream come true for all of us. And
before that it is my pleasure to welcome
all my friends from various law school
special invitees senior advocate Mr.
Latak Krishna Morti, Professors R Sur
Raman, other deans, associate deans,
members of the Tanjour and
Titarapalibar and all other student
friends. I would now request uh our head
of the department to present a momento
[Applause]
It is now time ladies and gentlemen for
what we have all been anxiously waiting.
It is indeed a great honor to call upon
senior advocate and former union
minister Shri Ramjet Malani to deliver
the 12th Nani Palwala memorial lecture
on constitutionalism and criminal
incriminal jurist prudence. S on you. [Applause]
Okay. The
distinguished vice
university. the teaching
staff who are serving
here and serving the great cause of
guests and my beloved
students, charming
ladies and slightly less charming gentlemen.
Paliwala was a great friend of
mine and we remained friends till the
palia. He accepted invitations to go and
speak but never spoke about the subject
He exercised what he called academic
freedom. But then not to
be too
disrespectful, he said a few words about
invited. I don't follow him
completely, but I must confess that I
First of
all, I know that you're all interested
lawyers. But I must tell
you that I do not approve of lawyers who
law. A lawyer who only knows
law is a mason, a worker.
What we need amongst the
lawyers is that they have to be architects.
And my
friends when I come to deliver any
lecture either in the classroom or this
kind of a broadened
classroom I take into
account that we need lawyers in the true
sense of being architects of the
Well, not that I'm not going to speak
about the
subject, but first of
Pakimala made great contributions to the
But it is somewhat unfortunate that he
was not a criminal
lawyer and therefore you will not find
much of his influence in the development
of criminal
law. He was a constitutional law pure and
and
simple and his developments of the
constitutional law are also wonderful.
But I'm
afraid some of the developments of
constitutional law in which you are
say. He appeared of course during the
emergency before the Supreme
I was a chairman of the bar council of
India at that
time and there was a warrant out of for my
my arrest
arrest
issued by that great lady from the
The Bombay High Court had granted a stay
of execution of that
warrant and I appeared before the Supreme
Court certainly to oppose the emergency
and to expose what it had done to
democracy. But
incidentally the Bombay High
arrest and I was carrying that order of
stay of my arrest in my
pocket which had made me so
irresponsible that there is not a great
place in India where I did not
go and said the fouthest things that
could be said about that lady who had
imposed this emergency on
India. But
then it is a great tribute to the just
judges of this country that nine high
courts had
held that despite the
emergency courts are fully empowered to
protect human
liberty and they were doing a wonderful
job. It is against the judgments of
these nine high courts in
India that the dictator took an appeal
to the Supreme
Court and of
course I wanted to appear before the
Supreme Court. So I asked one of the
datine news I mean I could have appeared
because I was myself a datu but I went
lawyer. I remember when I opened my
Court. So I said, "My
lords, you might think that I'm
appearing for this petitioner who has
engaged me in this
case. Doubtless true that he
has. But please don't remain under that
superstition. I am appearing for the
millions of datus who are rotting in
And their only protection is the
judiciary. And the judges in the high
courts have so far protected them
valiantly. And this is appeal brought to
your lordships so that you should
destroy the conscience of the
So
the chief justice
Ray almost jumped out of his [Applause]
[Applause]
chair. He said, "Mr. Jetman, did you
really say
that?" I said, "Yes, my lord. I not only said
said
it but I now wish to remind you of
something which is not meant for four
other judges but only for
you. There was a judge in
Ghana who helped the
government to draft the preventive
detention law of that
country. He had taken no other role. He
was not a supporter of the preventive detention
detention
jurisdons but he just helped them to
draft that legislation under which
preventive detention was being
introduced in that
state. When that law came into
force, ironically, the chief justice was
the first to be picked up under that
law. And nobody heard of what happened
to the chief justice for the next two
years until there was a critic
announcement in the press that the chief
justice died of natural
causes. I said, "My lord, that's the
fate which awaits all five of you."
After that the chief justice was quiet
throughout the
hearing. He heard me
fully and when I was concluding my
speech to the
judges I said my
lord Indian
democracy is yet not
dead. I agree that it is in the coffin,
coffin,
but I hope that it will not
die. And I'm here to see that it does not
die.
Well, I stopped at some place after 5
minutes. You know what happened
then? by a majority of 4
to1. All the nine high courts were set
aside and the Supreme Court delivered
the most disastrous and scandalous
judgment ever known to judicial
history. That one great judge redeemed
the honor of Indian judiciary.
Justice, you know that great
judge for whom an article appeared in
the New York
Times that here is a judge who
deserves the gratitude of posterity in
India and he deserves the admiration of
every freedom loving citizen of the
world and I hope the free world will
build a monument to the memory of this
My
friends, a time might come in your history
history
too, in your life
too that you might meet the kind of
situation that I had seen in
1975. It can happen again.
democracy is still in danger
danger
and that is
why I do not like Mr. party while I
stick to the subject assigned to me. But
the most grave necessities of the
time you
lawyers, you young lawyers
particularly must brace
yourself for becoming the defenders of India's
India's
democracy. And I assure you that
democracy is as much in danger today as
1975. And I still see signs of it
happening that what is happening
is that more and more vicious laws are
being enacted in the name of sustaining
the rule of law.
But the real purpose of those laws is to
take away the human rights of every
citizen and to prevent the exposure of
the corrupt and the
corruption and to see that
somehow they get along with their
vicious designs on the human beings who
call themselves citizens of this
unfortunate country. My
My
friends, those of you who have read some
history must have known that there is a
period in human
history called the dark ages of the world.
It is
said that these dark
ages existed in Europe and therefore the
world because Europe was the world at that
that
time from about the 6th century to the 14th
14th
century. And how was this age? How was
this calculation done? The calculation
was done was
was
that the rule of the Romans and the
Greeks had come to an
end. The rule of antiquity had come to an
an
end. And some other rule had come to be
imposed. And that came from whom? Came
from the Christian
powers and Christianity too.
But my
friends ultimately the bad name given to
Christianity to this the dark ages of
Europe was given by the Protestant
movement because they thought that all
the fault was done by the
Christians by the Catholics
Catholics
and I must say and that is I am very
anxious to say to Do I hope there are
some Muslim students sitting
here? I hope even if they are not here,
I hope somebody will report to them what
I am saying about the dark
ages. The dark ages of
Islam. My
friends, I am a
Hindu but I a great admirer of the
I admire
him because I have a rational attitude
to all
religion. My attitude to religion
is that
ultimately religion must surrender to science.
science.
And I find try to find in every
religion an attachment to this great
principle of my own existence.
And I find that there is no other
prophet in any religion including
Hinduism who said what the prophet of Islam
Islam
said. And if there are any Muslim students
students
present, please go back home and tell
everybody what Ramani said about the
prophet of Islam.
He is the one prophet who told his
followers that when you walk in the path of
of
knowledge, when you walk in search of
knowledge, you are walking in the path of
of
God. He is the one
prophet who added another to this great
theorem of
his that the ink of the scholar. Mind
you, you are all scholars here and I'm
telling you the tribute of the prophet of
of
Islam. The ink of the scholar he said is
holier than the blood of a
mart. And
while historians, Christians and others
are writing
about writing about the dark ages of
history. It is a match going on between
Catholics and perhaps the Jews and some
others. But everybody has forgotten what
the prophet of Islam
did. And my friends, I am so tempted to
share a few minutes with you about what
happened. Why the Muslims were following
teaching. Muslims became the rulers of
the world.
They went and conquered even
Spain. To cut things
short, there was a Muslim
scholar who was invited by the Khalifa
to go and live in his
palace. He declined the invitation. He
said no sir, I can't come. So the
Khalifa insisted that why I give you all
facilities for your study. I will not
interfere with anything that you do or
say or
write. But tell me the reason if you are
not coming. Why
not? Do you know the reason that he
gave? The reason he gave is sir if I
shift to your palace I require 400
camels to transport my
library. And today I've been taken to
the library of this college of yours and
I'm very proud of this college and I'm
proud of those who collected this library.
library.
But this great great scholar of Islam
refused to go and live in the royal
palace because he didn't want to shift
his 400 chem library and he wanted to be
with his own
books. And to cut this story
short for 13
centuries Islam spread education because
they were following the teaching of the
prophet. In the 13th century, Islam got
a mad
khalifa to burn all books except the
Quran. So all those books which required
400 camels at one time had to
disappear. And my
friends, Muslims became the slaves of
the very powers whom they had educated
in the first instance. And therefore I
don't believe in the dark ages theory.
Dark ages did exist in some way but it
existed in those areas and in those
patches where religion was not subject to
to
science where education was not superior to
to
illiteracy. where that teacher was not
respected much more than the uneducated fool.
fool.
And I am here to warn you today that
while you are sitting
across me and in my
friend please remember today that the
dark ages exist today in the year
2016 and it is the role of lawyers and
trained lawyers to put an end to the
dark ages which are in
existence. Politicians will not admit it.
it.
Politicians are the cause of the dark
ages in this country and they are
therefore not interested in encouraging
great institutions of education. These
are the temples of
democracy. Democracy without education
is hypocrisy without limitation. And
that is precisely what is happening. I
am happy that you are here. hell. But I
want to tell you that the story of the
dark ages is is practically
false. After all, when you say there
were dark ages, it is being said by the
Christians. They don't want to pay
attention to the to what the prophet of
Islam had achieved during that very
period. But the Muslim friends also
don't know their history. And today we
don't have the real version of Islam. We
have a counterfeit version of Islam
which I call the Islam version which has
nothing to do with the prophet of Islam.
Well, what you see
now is mad Islam. This
is what is it is a terrorist
organization which wants to go on
killing people, disturb the peace of the
world. And today these terrorists are
not the simple terrorists of centuries
ago. They are terrorists who have
nuclear power in their hands. Once they
get hands put their hands on the nuclear
power, be sure that the world is doomed
forever and they will first destroy the
real Islam then they will turn brothers
and I don't know whether anybody will
survive because the nuclear power used
on a big scale which is wants to do is
something which is a total threat to the
existence of the whole world. So it is
these dark ages my friend in which you
lawyers and buing lawyers and good
lawyers are functioning and that is the
part to which I wish to address myself
today. Please think of this and be great
exponents of free
education. You are citizens of India.
Those of you who are have at least sold
loyalty to the constitution of
India and mind you that the constitution of
of
India has
proclaimed its
attachment to what we call
secularism. What is secularism is the
first thing which law should know and
they should do better than everybody else.
else. My
My friends,
friends,
secularism is the
superiority of knowledge over ignorance,
education over
illiteracy, reason over false
belief. And
finally, the superiority of science over
religion. I am conscious. I am a student
of what the scientists have achieved in
this world. Their achievements have been
great, great, great.
On the other hand, every great scientist
has also committed errors. And there's a
book which I will recommend to you.
There's a book
called the the
the most monumental blenders of the
world. These are blenders committed by
the greatest scientists like Darin and
Einstein. and make all the students read
these kind of books and you will come to
know that today we are related to
secularism. Secularism means no for
belief rational belief maybe that
rational belief itself be sometimes it
is better to be by that belief because
that belief at least in your own mind is
capable of being changed and not like a
religious belief which is not supposed
to change at all. And every day and I
illustration. It's I'm ashamed as an
Indian citizen that in this country
there should be a
controversy over Barat
on? Does anybody understand what this
is the name given to the soil the ground
at the earth of
India. Does not the earth provide you
means of
sustainance? Does it not provide you
food grains? Does it not provide you?
Does it not provide you every possible
luxury for your
sustainance? And what does a mother do?
Mother also looks after her children by
sacrificing a part of herself to look
after the children. In that sense, the
whole earth of the universe, the whole
earth of this planet is a mother because
the mother takes care of the entire
population and growing
populations. And if you say that glory
be to the
mother, there's the Muslim idiot who
said this this morning in the
papers, Islam doesn't permit it. In
other words, Islam tells you not to not
not to give respect to your mother who
takes care of you through thick and thin
all your life. You must the lawyers must
learn to speak up. Please go against
these people who talk like this. They
are taking liberties under the
constitution of India. The freedom of
speech guaranteed by the constitution of
India and then trying to suppress that
speech by telling people not to show any
respect for your mother. The earth is
the mother of everybody. It sustains
Muslims. It sustains non-Muslims.
Sustains everybody.
So my
friends, we are in the dark ages of
history today and these dark ages have
to be ended and the greatest
contribution can come from the
universities and particularly the
students of law and the buing lawyers
who are going to take ultimately the
charge of this country.
I want lawyers to be proud of one
fact that it is lawyers mainly who
produced the constitution of
India who were sitting in the
constituent assembly. Of course there
were bureaucrats and others and so on
and so forth.
forth.
Ultimately I considered that the
constitution of India was mainly the
The kind of document that he has
produced is a document of which everyone
should be
proud and for one reason and one reason
alone that Abbekar produced this great
constitution. You must be very kind and
helpful to do the to those communities
of India to which Dr. Ambedkar belongs.
And please see that there is no rivalry
between the two. The politicians are out
to exploit even that and they will not
allow you to do justice to the memory of
the great great
constitutional lawyer or constitutional
author and a person who literally is
responsible for 90% of the work on the
constitution of
India. Now
that now
you come to this small little topic that
you have kept for today. It is small as
well as
big. What I want you to do is that
tomorrow one of your guests is going to
be Mr. Data
right he is going to speak to
you. What is the subject that you have
assigned to him?
Huh? Pala and the constitution. Oh,
Pala's contribution.
Oh, Lar has produced a great book on the
commentary of the constitution of
India. In that, please pluck off the
pages of his commentary under article 21
of the constitution of
India and you learn everything that you
have to learn on this subject on which
you have asked me today to speak.
tomorrow interrupt Mr.
and tell him that we want you to
supplement what Ramani has told us
yesterday and your fixed speech we will
hear some other time and my friends you
will get a very very detailed knowledge
of the subject on which you have asked
me to speak but that doesn't mean that
I'm sherking my duty I want to speak to
you about
it now first of
all those of
you who have a senator of a of a sort of
knowledge of the Indian
constitution knows very well that in the
early history of India the Supreme Court
judgment. It was a disastrous
judgment on the construction of article
21 of the constitution of India.
The most
important fundamental right in the
fundamental right chapter of the Indian
constitution is article
21 which preserves our liberty life and
liberty and life doesn't mean merely
physical existence as
animal. It means everything that makes life
life
worthwhile. opportunities for education,
opportunities for medical treatment,
opportunities for good health, for
travel, for growth of knowledge,
education, everything is a part of the
building of life on this planet. So
article 21
unfortunately was not construed in this
great light which thereafter has risen
under the scholarship dealing with article
article
21 that famous that notorious judgment
delivered in those days which
fortunately is no longer good law today.
That judgment said that all that article
21 says is that your life and liberty
can be taken away by law. Once the
legislature has passed the valid law and
article 21 is satisfied, there's nothing
more to be talked about by liberty. Now
these were very very great
judges. Four of them who constituted the
majority spoke of this kind of a thing
which LLB student today should be
ashamed of but there was at least one
judge who redeemed himself the minority
judge in that case he at least said that
I don't accept the majority judgment and
he remains a great great great image of
a great judge and a constitutional
judge would judge
has finally been affirmed and the
majority view has finally been
abandoned. Now, article
21. How has it been
modified? Article 21 has been modified
by a very simple judicial method that
article 21 has to coexist along with
Now what does article 14
say? Article 14 construed by
itself has provided us with two great maximums.
maximums.
First of all, that all things everything
must be done
reasonably and without the slightest
room for being unlawful
differentiation. So that laws must
equally apply to
everybody and must apply reasonably to
everybody is the mandate of article
14. And my friends when this old
construction of
21 became a subject matter of judicial
challenge it came about by saying that
article 21 does not exist in a vacuum.
It exists in good company.
That company must also tell us the
meaning of article 21 because these
articles must all be read together and
given effect to at the same
time. Now this is article
14. But there is article 19 of the
constitution which deals with so many
fundamental rights. Right of free
movement, right of freedom of speech,
right of forming associations and so on
and so forth.
If article 21 and
19 had to
coexist then every
right created by the clauses of article
19 is also a part of article
21. And there is one more restriction on
the legislative power of parliament or
any legislative assembly or
institution that all laws must be
reasonable restrictions on fundamental
rights. That is the simple
juristprudence of Indian constitution.
The simple juristprudence of Indian
constitution is that whenever you impose
any legal restrictions by passing law on
a human being's freedom of expression,
freedom to form friendships, freedom,
freedom to choose his business or
profession and whatever.
All these restrictions must be
reasonable and they must be advanced
must be imposed for the purpose of
helping higher interest to persist so
that they are not harmed. You can't go
on abusing a person defaming a person to
that extent the freedom of speech must
be restricted. I agree but you can't say
that you you you shall not speak at all
against some politicians. You can't
speak against Modi for example which I
do now. So my friends this it's a very
simple thing that has happened. You read
about 30 pages in Data's book. Tomorrow
he will give you a copy. I will give you
a few pages of those. They trace the
history from judgment to judgment.
How article 14 was brought into 19. Then
article 19 was brought into article 21.
And then the unity of these three
articles has then come to one one final conclusion
conclusion
that all restrictions must be
reasonable. If they are not reasonable,
it does not matter that parliament has
imposed them by law. In that sense,
article 21 is satisfied. But article 21
has other content which it borrows from its
its
neighbors. So my friends, now let me
give you an illustration. These
These
days the investigations
are criminal investigations particularly
in very serious crimes which are a great
danger to society.
society.
Parliament also consisting of some
ignorant politicians who know nothing
more than anything any good
lawyer they are keeping passing
laws. Now one law that was passed
is called the National Investigation
Act. I think it's a it's a law which
were passed in the in this uh after
2000. Now it is in
force. Now this law contains two
provisions restrictions on
bail. Virtually the law has now been
changed. That court before it grants
bail must be satisfied that this man is
not going to be
convicted. Bail becomes
useless. Then then then what does the
judge do after after a man is charged
and he's brought in custody? You don't
give him bail.
If you give him bail, you are holding
that he is not guilty at that stage. So
there must be something wrong with this
kind of a law and that is precisely the
change which has taken place. Now I want
to tell
you some latest
contributions. Latest
judgment. It's a famous
case of Aruk
Buan decided in
2011. 2011 three Supreme Court cases page
page 377.
377.
2011 three Supreme Court cases page
377. It is a judgment
judgment
of two judges of the Supreme
Court and one of these judges my friends
is Mr. Justice Kaju who is no longer on
the bench. It is
KJU and Gan Sudha Mishra two
judges and see the wonderful things that
has happened in this particular
judgment. This gives you almost a
summary of the whole argument that I
want to place before you for your
consideration on this particular topic.
The rest Mr. Datar will tell you and I
will give you the pages from his book.
Go and read them. Now please understand
what this judge
says. He he cites first American cases. He
He
says paragraph
9 in state of
Kerala versus
Lanife. We have respectfully
agreed with the United States Supreme Court
Court
decisions in Ed versus
Zed which has
rejected the doctrine of guilt by association.
association.
Mere membership of a banned
organization. Now this is the Lord laid
down. Mere membership of a banned
organization will not incriminate a
person unless he resorts to violence or
incites people to violence or does an
act intended to create disorder,
disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.
violence.
Now you
see that merely making the law is not
enough. What they did was they wanted to
find a cure for
terrorism. But they don't have proper
investigating officers. They don't have proper
proper
courts. So therefore find an easy
way. If you are a member of a banned
terrorist organization and that band
comes from a notification being issued
by the executive that this is a banned
organization. If you are a member of an
organization that itself is a criminal
imprisonment. The legislators found that
now now we have conquered terrorism. Conquering
Conquering
terrorism requires greater talent than
merely passing a stupid law like this.
And these two judgments had no
difficulty in setting aside all
these cases of conviction where a person
was shown to be a
member without any proof. There was not
even a
proof that that man had taken an oath by
membership that I will subscribe to all
the objects of this association and one
of the objects is spread of violence
or winning an election by violence or by
separating India
from separating Kashmir from India or
something like that by violence.
Unless that is an ingredient of the
offense said Mr. Ku that mere membership
can't be an offense. Look at this simple
proposition laid down by two
judges. This is a doctrine of guilt by
association that this association is
doing something wrong. Since you have
become a member you must be sharing that
objective. This is a proof positive by
itself. Mere membership of a banned
organization will not incriminate a
person unless he resorts to violence or
incites people to violence or doesn't
act intended to. And after saying all
judge set aside the orders of other
courts and so on and so forth. And
then just see another remarkable
judgment coming from the same judge. How
how the law has been now completely
modified. And this is bill law. What the
legislator is now doing is to punish
people because they their investigative
machinery is poor. They don't collect
evidence. Therefore, you charge the
person. Then the trial goes on for
years. Ultimately you may find that it
is no case at all. But in the meantime
the poor alleged terrorist has suffered
imprisonment for 5 years. So this is
what happened
now in a judgment of 2011.
2011.
2011 SEC
Now again the same brilliant judge
says in in an is versus the United
States again relying upon American
decisions. Harlon J. of the US Supreme
Court while dealing with membership
clause in the Macaran Act 1950
1950 distinguished
distinguished between
between
active knowing membership and passive
merely nominal membership in a
subversive organization. and
observe the clause does not make
criminal all association with an
organization which has been shown to be
engaged in illegal activities. A person
may be foolish, deluded or perhaps more optim
optim
optimistic but he is not by this statute
made a criminal. There must be clear
proof that the defendant is specifically
intends to accomplish the ancient
objects of that organization by resort to
violence. And then in the next paragraph
citing another American case, the
Supreme Court holds a law which applies to
to
membership without the specific intent
to further the illegal aims of the
organization infringing unnecessarily on
protected freedoms.
It rests on the doctrine of guilt by
association which has no place
here. And then we are in respectful
agreement they say with these American
judgments. And finally see the wonderful
wonderful paragraph in which what kind
of modification of the entire bill law
which they provided. The legislature
passed a law that you can't give anybody
bail unless you come to the conclusion
that he's innocent. But then what is the
trial for? At the bail stage, you will
decide whether a man should be will be
acquitted or no. Then why why do you
hold the rest of the trial at all? The
laws are also foolish. But Mr. Justice
Kajju gave a judgment paragraph 15 of
which today every practicing lawyer
carries in his pocket because he is no
longer satisfied with the mere
inunciation as exists today in the
unlawful activities prevention act.
Section 18 of that act 20 of that act
says that whoever is a member of a banned
banned
organization will suffer imprisonment
which which will extend to life
imprisonment. This is what the great
judge says in deciding bail
applications. An important factor which
should certainly be taken into
consideration by the court is the delay
in concluding the trial. Often this
takes several years and if the accute is
denied bail but is ultimately accuted.
Who restore so many years of the life is
spent in
custody? Is article 21 of the
constitution which is the most basic of
the fundamental rights in our
constitution not violated in such case.
Of course, this is not the only factor,
but it certainly is one of the important
factors in deciding whether to grant
bail. In the present case, the
respondents have already spent 66 days
only 66 days
only and he must be granted bail because
who will then compensate him finally if
he is
a common sense applied to the
construction of laws which are being
passed by parliament that and I must
tell you frankly that I am
appearing in the Delhi High Court
currently for an accused who is a Kashmiri
Kashmiri
Muslim. He's accused number one in the
case but he's a practicing
lawyer and he has been charged
with collecting money on one
occasion from some people. The
prosecution says that they are
terrorists. There's no
evidence. For 5
years, only 27 witnesses have been
examined in the case. 119 are still to
be examined in the case. Which means
that the whole trial will take at least
15 years. For 15 years, this man will
remain in custody. And Kuw says 66 days.
This man has remained in custody. In his
spite of all stupid law, he will be released
released
under. This is the role of the
judiciary. This is the rule of the
gallant bar of this country and that is
how you will serve democracy and you
will serve humanity and serve
incidentally yourself. And my
more judgment and I
have finished today. Please
understand the law is very simple.
the laws that don't deal with article 21 in
in
isolation. Article 21 also takes added
color which color is not clear from its
own words but it is clear from the words
which are associated with it. They exist
in the same document article 14 and
article 19 that all restrictions have to
be reasonable and these are unreasonable
restrictions. And my friends in the
particular case which I told you I am
arguing I'm arguing for a Kashmir
advocate practicing he supposed to be a
member of
Hezbollah Hezbul which is a banned
organization there evidence of his being
a member also but that a part that I
don't know when the turn will come because 119 witnesses have to be
because 119 witnesses have to be examined I'll be able to establish that
examined I'll be able to establish that he is not a member but even if he a
he is not a member but even if he a member says you you al and prove that he
member says you you al and prove that he is guilty of inciting violence or
is guilty of inciting violence or terrorism of which there is no evidence
terrorism of which there is no evidence at all and the judges have postponed the
at all and the judges have postponed the hearing. I argued that matter last last
hearing. I argued that matter last last week. The judges have postponed it and
week. The judges have postponed it and told the home minister that please
told the home minister that please report to us whether you you you will
report to us whether you you you will consent to bail or no. And I'm sure that
consent to bail or no. And I'm sure that a movement is going on next hearing
a movement is going on next hearing inshallah the the persecutor will have
inshallah the the persecutor will have the sense to come and tell the court
the sense to come and tell the court that sir this innocent advocate has done
that sir this innocent advocate has done nothing and he should be released on
nothing and he should be released on bail. that this is the latest
bail. that this is the latest development in the law created by judges
development in the law created by judges who know their Jewish prudence who know
who know their Jewish prudence who know the spirit of India's constitution and
the spirit of India's constitution and my friends once again once again please
my friends once again once again please you are the educated section of society
you are the educated section of society you lawyers are believe me the cream of
you lawyers are believe me the cream of society I want before I close into the
society I want before I close into the Next 5 minutes I wish to introduce you
Next 5 minutes I wish to introduce you to the first lawyer of
to the first lawyer of history. Does anyone
history. Does anyone know? Please tell me. You are not. How
know? Please tell me. You are not. How do you want to become
do you want to become lawyers? You must know the first law of
lawyers? You must know the first law of history. The first law of history, my
friend, was a man called Daniel.
Daniel. His
His story is located in ancient
story is located in ancient Babylon. It is a part of a biblical
Babylon. It is a part of a biblical story of Daniel and
Susana. Babylon was ruled by four old men as was the habit in those days.
men as was the habit in those days. Four old men they ruled this
Four old men they ruled this country and the old men of those days
country and the old men of those days were no better than the old men of
were no better than the old men of today. They suffered from the same
today. They suffered from the same weaknesses. And these four old men each
weaknesses. And these four old men each cast leous glance at this beautiful
cast leous glance at this beautiful woman called Susana living in that
woman called Susana living in that country. They seduced her. They tried to
country. They seduced her. They tried to seduce her but the virtue of the woman
seduce her but the virtue of the woman was stronger than the solicitations of
was stronger than the solicitations of these old
these old men. She
men. She resisted and these four old men brought
resisted and these four old men brought a false case against her. False case of
a false case against her. False case of adultery with a young man
unknown. They were the accusers. They were the judges. They were the rulers.
were the judges. They were the rulers. They were the witnesses. The poor Susana
They were the witnesses. The poor Susana was found guilty and sentenced to be
was found guilty and sentenced to be stoned to
stoned to death. A crowd has collected says the
death. A crowd has collected says the Bible to witness the execution of this
Bible to witness the execution of this woman. And when the crowd was waiting to
woman. And when the crowd was waiting to see the
see the execution, there was a young man called
execution, there was a young man called Daniel who got up from the crowd.
Daniel who got up from the crowd. He got up and
He got up and said, "I don't believe that this woman
said, "I don't believe that this woman is guilty at
is guilty at all." So the crowd was not impressed by
all." So the crowd was not impressed by his wisdom, but they surely were
his wisdom, but they surely were impressed by his bravado. So young man,
impressed by his bravado. So young man, but what do you want? He said, "I want
but what do you want? He said, "I want to ask some questions from these old
to ask some questions from these old [Music]
[Music] men." Crowd said, "All right, we'll give
men." Crowd said, "All right, we'll give you."
you." But he says I want to he acted quietly
But he says I want to he acted quietly like a lawyer of today. You know today
like a lawyer of today. You know today when a lawyer goes to court he insists
when a lawyer goes to court he insists that all other witnesses on the same
that all other witnesses on the same point should be kept away from court and
point should be kept away from court and they should not hear what he's asking
they should not hear what he's asking one witness so that they come ready with
one witness so that they come ready with answers next
answers next time. So therefore he they said all
time. So therefore he they said all right. So he asked the poor fellow was
right. So he asked the poor fellow was not a trained lord but he was high up in
not a trained lord but he was high up in his spirit.
his spirit. He asked the first old man then where
He asked the first old man then where did you see this being committed? He
did you see this being committed? He said I saw it in the royal
said I saw it in the royal palace where then he named some section
palace where then he named some section of the royal palace. The second old man
of the royal palace. The second old man was asked the same question. Oh he says
was asked the same question. Oh he says sir it took place on the river bank. The
sir it took place on the river bank. The third says so no sir it took place high
third says so no sir it took place high up in some tower.
up in some tower. All four gave conflicting replies and
All four gave conflicting replies and the Bible
the Bible records that the crowd which had come to
records that the crowd which had come to witness the execution of this poor woman
witness the execution of this poor woman was now howling for the blood of these
was now howling for the blood of these four old men. My lawyer
four old men. My lawyer friends please please first of all pick
friends please please first of all pick up the qualities of bravery and courage
up the qualities of bravery and courage from this first lord of history. He was
from this first lord of history. He was the first lord of history who fought to
the first lord of history who fought to establish innocence who fought free
establish innocence who fought free without a
without a fee. And that
fee. And that underscores that you shall not deny your
underscores that you shall not deny your services to anybody. You cannot pay your
fees. I I'm very proud to tell you a fact which practically every judge knows
fact which practically every judge knows and every member of the bar knows. I
and every member of the bar knows. I earn money at the
earn money at the bar but I earn it from 10% of my
bar but I earn it from 10% of my clients. My 90% work is still free
work and a lawyer has to give free services to anyone who cannot afford to
services to anyone who cannot afford to pay his fees. That is his moral and
pay his fees. That is his moral and professional duty. Now highlighted by
professional duty. Now highlighted by rules framed by the bar council of India
rules framed by the bar council of India when I was the chairman of the bar
when I was the chairman of the bar council of India for the for four terms
council of India for the for four terms all these rules I have got them framed
all these rules I have got them framed and today rendering free legal service
and today rendering free legal service is a statutory obligation under the
is a statutory obligation under the advocates act of every lawyer but those
advocates act of every lawyer but those laws don't discharge your duty properly
laws don't discharge your duty properly and I hope you youngsters will do that
and I hope you youngsters will do that and if there are any Muslims present
and if there are any Muslims present Please go and tell your Muslim friends
Please go and tell your Muslim friends that please try and understand Islam.
that please try and understand Islam. This is a counterfeit version of Islam
This is a counterfeit version of Islam that is now creating all this problem in
that is now creating all this problem in this world and thank
you. Thank you very much sir for your
Thank you very much sir for your inspirational speech. All our students
inspirational speech. All our students will strive to follow the path of
will strive to follow the path of knowledge and as said in
knowledge and as said in Sanskrit we will uh knowledge will lead
Sanskrit we will uh knowledge will lead us from darkness to light. Okay. Uh so
us from darkness to light. Okay. Uh so now the floor is thrown up into
now the floor is thrown up into questions. We have exactly 20 minutes.
questions. We have exactly 20 minutes. Please raise your hand. The mic will
Please raise your hand. The mic will come to you and distribute it to the
come to you and distribute it to the student
particular question. Uh good afternoon Jade Malani sir. I am Akash from Campus
Jade Malani sir. I am Akash from Campus Law Center University of Delhi. Sir my
Law Center University of Delhi. Sir my question is related to first part of
question is related to first part of your lecture where you talked about dark
your lecture where you talked about dark ages. Sir my question is is cast system
ages. Sir my question is is cast system can it be a contributing factor to dark
can it be a contributing factor to dark ages or sir in your first part of your
ages or sir in your first part of your lecture you talked about dark ages? Very
lecture you talked about dark ages? Very much possibility of dark ages nowadays.
much possibility of dark ages nowadays. Sir my question is can cast system be a
Sir my question is can cast system be a contributing factor to dark ages and
contributing factor to dark ages and what about s reservation which is based
what about s reservation which is based on cast can it also be a contributing
on cast can it also be a contributing factor to dark ages thank you
there but I believe that there's lot of misunderstanding about cast and The
misunderstanding about cast and The theory of reservation for
theory of reservation for cast. You
see, reservation is an exception to the rule
reservation is an exception to the rule of
of equality. To that extent, it is
equality. To that extent, it is repugnant to the constitution.
repugnant to the constitution. But it has been saved expressly by our
But it has been saved expressly by our constitution
constitution because equality means that those people
because equality means that those people have been treated equally in history.
have been treated equally in history. The costs which we call the schedule
The costs which we call the schedule costs are those who have suffered
costs are those who have suffered humiliation, denial of education for
humiliation, denial of education for centuries and so much so
centuries and so much so that the conclusion that has been
that the conclusion that has been reached by the constituent assembly is
reached by the constituent assembly is that their mental faculties have been so
that their mental faculties have been so seriously depreciated that they cannot
seriously depreciated that they cannot be expected to compete on terms of
be expected to compete on terms of equality with those who have not gone
equality with those who have not gone through this historical system of
through this historical system of injustice. So reservations are a
injustice. So reservations are a justification and the justification is
justification and the justification is perfectly sound
perfectly sound justification. After all they produced
justification. After all they produced popular and
popular and ultimately after having used the I'm
ultimately after having used the I'm sorry to say that I'm a I'm a critic of
sorry to say that I'm a I'm a critic of most of the things that have been done
most of the things that have been done by the government they used Dr.
by the government they used Dr. so much having used
so much having used him they
him they almost I mean I proved so ungrateful to
almost I mean I proved so ungrateful to that man after 2 and a half years that
that man after 2 and a half years that man went and embraced
man went and embraced Buddhism he became a
Buddhism he became a [Music]
[Music] Buddhist but I don't believe that there
Buddhist but I don't believe that there has been a greater Jewish than Dr. Rakar
has been a greater Jewish than Dr. Rakar himself but it it is again it's a
himself but it it is again it's a phenomena of history which you can't
phenomena of history which you can't explain. He belonged to that cast which
explain. He belonged to that cast which had suffered this kind of injustice and
had suffered this kind of injustice and yet they produced one excellent person
yet they produced one excellent person who became the founding father of our
who became the founding father of our Indian constitution. Now we must sit and
Indian constitution. Now we must sit and reward those people who from whose
reward those people who from whose community he came and he did advise that
community he came and he did advise that there should be reservations for some
there should be reservations for some time. Now politicians will not allow
time. Now politicians will not allow these reservations ever to go. Now that
these reservations ever to go. Now that is the action of corrupt politicians and
is the action of corrupt politicians and please fight against corrupt politicians
please fight against corrupt politicians if you want to but please satisfy
if you want to but please satisfy yourself. Has the
yourself. Has the educational training provided for these
educational training provided for these scheduled cast has it of such quality
scheduled cast has it of such quality and such duration that you can say that
and such duration that you can say that the historical injustice has been
the historical injustice has been neutralized. That's the
neutralized. That's the question.
Excuse me sir.
sir. Sir my name is
Sir my name is Nagaraj. Sir my name is Akshi Nagar
Nagaraj. Sir my name is Akshi Nagar Rajan and I'm a fourth year student of
Rajan and I'm a fourth year student of law from Shastra University. Sir I had a
law from Shastra University. Sir I had a question on one of the parts of your
question on one of the parts of your lecture where you had said that article
lecture where you had said that article 14 has to be seen in light of article 21
14 has to be seen in light of article 21 and 90. No sir. So, so now if we accept
and 90. No sir. So, so now if we accept that 14 as well as article 21 and 19
that 14 as well as article 21 and 19 that was one one of your parts lecture.
that was one one of your parts lecture. Sir my question is is that if we accept
Sir my question is is that if we accept that sir aren't we saying that laws are
that sir aren't we saying that laws are open to challenge to the due process
open to challenge to the due process which our constitution had rejected by
which our constitution had rejected by saying that article 21 law no law shall
saying that article 21 law no law shall deprive a person unless it is
sir my question is basically when you had said that article why did you come
had said that article why did you come here
here [Music]
[Music] sir My
question sir, my question was when you had said that article 21 has to be read
had said that article 21 has to be read in light of article 19 and 14. Aren't we
in light of article 19 and 14. Aren't we now accepting that laws are open to
now accepting that laws are open to challenge the due process clause which
challenge the due process clause which was rejected by our constitution? No ma
was rejected by our constitution? No ma this is constitution never rejected
this is constitution never rejected anything. Constitution created these
anything. Constitution created these articles. It is judicial interpretation
articles. It is judicial interpretation given by a majority of judges. There was
given by a majority of judges. There was even then one single judge who who
even then one single judge who who dissented from the majority and that
dissented from the majority and that single judge has now become the majority
single judge has now become the majority of you. So these these are changes due
of you. So these these are changes due to the law of
procedence. I have also to catch a flight.
Good evening sir. I'm Sik. I Isn't some lady asking a question? Sir,
good evening sir. I'm Siksha. In your first part of your lecture you
In your first part of your lecture you said that when science prevails over
said that when science prevails over religion only when then the dark ages
religion only when then the dark ages will end. But uh isn't uh I but I feel
will end. But uh isn't uh I but I feel that science is actually a part of
that science is actually a part of religion. Only when we demarcate between
religion. Only when we demarcate between the two will this problem come up. Your
the two will this problem come up. Your opinion on that
opinion on that sir
sir den I told you that the theory of dark
den I told you that the theory of dark ages has also gone into a great
ages has also gone into a great great sort of confusion and there are
great sort of confusion and there are some people who don't believe that the
some people who don't believe that the dark ages existed. I myself one who
dark ages existed. I myself one who believes that when you are talking of
believes that when you are talking of dark ages the light of Islam was going
dark ages the light of Islam was going on there was Islamic teaching that at
on there was Islamic teaching that at that time which was current. So why and
that time which was current. So why and when the protesters came they said that
when the protesters came they said that this was a case of
this was a case of Catholic Catholic crime Catholic
Catholic Catholic crime Catholic corruption. So it has it has got mixed
corruption. So it has it has got mixed up with some religious animosities and
up with some religious animosities and so on and so forth. You forget it.
so on and so forth. You forget it. Darkness exists
book. Listen, I have brought this book for
Listen, I have brought this book for you. It has been published some 2 three
you. It has been published some 2 three years
years back. The title of this book is religion
back. The title of this book is religion gone
gone astray. It is not authored by one
astray. It is not authored by one person.
person. It is authored jointly by three
It is authored jointly by three persons.
persons. One is pastor Don McKenzie a Christian.
One is pastor Don McKenzie a Christian. Second Jewish Rabbi Tate
Second Jewish Rabbi Tate Faulen and
Faulen and third Imm Jamal
third Imm Jamal Raban. Three great scholars have come
Raban. Three great scholars have come together and written this book. It
together and written this book. It should be a prescribed textbook for
should be a prescribed textbook for every student in the colleges and the
every student in the colleges and the higher standards of school. And believe
higher standards of school. And believe you me, you will become better citizens
you me, you will become better citizens when you read this book. And you will
when you read this book. And you will learn
learn ultimately that and and these people
ultimately that and and these people these people have taken out
these people have taken out passages passages from each religion and
passages passages from each religion and shown that there's no difference.
shown that there's no difference. Every religion has its
Every religion has its core and in addition to the core there
core and in addition to the core there is a section which is the disposable
is a section which is the disposable vest. Find out the core of that
vest. Find out the core of that religion. The core of all religions is
religion. The core of all religions is same. But there are disposable vest in
same. But there are disposable vest in every religion that you must discard.
every religion that you must discard. And you will discard it not by referring
And you will discard it not by referring to the religion but you will discard it
to the religion but you will discard it by using this faculty which is
by using this faculty which is ultimately god-given. Please use it, use
ultimately god-given. Please use it, use it, use it. And I am known as I told you
it, use it. And I am known as I told you I'm a great restrictor of the prophet of
I'm a great restrictor of the prophet of Islam. But did the prophet of Islam know
Islam. But did the prophet of Islam know that the earth revolves around the
that the earth revolves around the sun? No prophet
sun? No prophet knew what I'm talking about. They were
knew what I'm talking about. They were also ignorant people but they were
also ignorant people but they were better and please I'm leaving this book
better and please I'm leaving this book and I hope you will see to it that every
and I hope you will see to it that every student
gets have I your last question could I have to catch a flight now uh good
have to catch a flight now uh good afternoon Jet Milani sir firstly it's an
afternoon Jet Milani sir firstly it's an honor to be in your presence uh sir my
honor to be in your presence uh sir my question is u that you had spoken
question is u that you had spoken briefly about result of wrong judgments
briefly about result of wrong judgments sometimes how judges can um give
sometimes how judges can um give alternative judgments toward what
alternative judgments toward what opinion is public opinion. So do you
opinion is public opinion. So do you think that we as law students who in
think that we as law students who in today's world do have an opportunity to
today's world do have an opportunity to reach that post through the judicial
reach that post through the judicial exam uh do you think it is advisable for
exam uh do you think it is advisable for us to take that step without any prior
us to take that step without any prior or maybe lack of uh advocacy experience
or maybe lack of uh advocacy experience to reach that post? But I never never
to reach that post? But I never never never and I don't like advocates of one
never and I don't like advocates of one year and twoear practice being appointed
year and twoear practice being appointed judges. That that's for sure. Judges
judges. That that's for sure. Judges have to be of of a much more mature
have to be of of a much more mature understanding and great
understanding and great knowledge
knowledge and ultimately even judges are
and ultimately even judges are human and some of them
human and some of them wrongly escape through
wrongly escape through the fetterss for appointment of good
the fetterss for appointment of good judges. So therefore no human
judges. So therefore no human institution can be perfect in comparison
institution can be perfect in comparison to all other departments of public life.
to all other departments of public life. I still maintain and I can share that
I still maintain and I can share that our judges are are the
best and thank you. Thank you and be sure and if I'm invited again I'm glad
sure and if I'm invited again I'm glad to come. All
right. I would now like to call upon Aishwara Mahesh fourth year BLB to
Aishwara Mahesh fourth year BLB to present the vote of thanks.
Good evening everybody. A brilliant lawyer, an author, a politician, a
lawyer, an author, a politician, a flamboyant person in India is one of one
flamboyant person in India is one of one of India's most sharpest legal minds.
of India's most sharpest legal minds. Ramjut Manis is this and much more and
Ramjut Manis is this and much more and we all know that his achievements stand
we all know that his achievements stand tall and are indeed all inspiring.
tall and are indeed all inspiring. It is indeed my honor and privilege to
It is indeed my honor and privilege to stand here and share the dis with one of
stand here and share the dis with one of such great legal luminaries and uh a
such great legal luminaries and uh a person who just few minutes back
person who just few minutes back thundered with words his words of wisdom
thundered with words his words of wisdom and shares his wealth of experience
and shares his wealth of experience intertwined with his precious words of
intertwined with his precious words of advice. I'm pretty sure we'll follow
advice. I'm pretty sure we'll follow them sir and hope to be architects of
them sir and hope to be architects of the India like he wanted us to be as
the India like he wanted us to be as lawyers especially on behalf of the
lawyers especially on behalf of the management faculty and students of
management faculty and students of school of lasastra university and
school of lasastra university and everyone present here I would like to
everyone present here I would like to thank uh Sri Ramjit Mani for having
thank uh Sri Ramjit Mani for having agreed to deliver the 12th Nani Pala
agreed to deliver the 12th Nani Pala memorial lecture uh so you continue to
memorial lecture uh so you continue to be an inspiration for us and you've
be an inspiration for us and you've always been one so thank you for that
always been one so thank you for that sir
I would also like to convey my deep sense of regard and heartfelt gratitude
sense of regard and heartfelt gratitude to the Safra family a vice chancellor
to the Safra family a vice chancellor professor Raman a registister Dr. G
professor Raman a registister Dr. G Bachan dean planning development Dr. is
Bachan dean planning development Dr. is why this is superium and level head of
why this is superium and level head of the department
of interest in that help us in getting such a holistic education experience
such a holistic education experience here in Sastra. My sincere thanks to the
here in Sastra. My sincere thanks to the faculty school of law sastra university
faculty school of law sastra university and all the students here for their
and all the students here for their unrelenting support. Also I would like
unrelenting support. Also I would like to thank all the special invitees here
to thank all the special invitees here for
for their special invitees here uh justice
their special invitees here uh justice uh is Namutu Lataka and all the other
uh is Namutu Lataka and all the other specialities here for raising us in
specialities here for raising us in their
their presence. I would also like to thank the
presence. I would also like to thank the civil maintenance department for the
civil maintenance department for the arrangements and thank you all for
arrangements and thank you all for having made this day possible. It's
having made this day possible. It's truly memorable and thanks a lot.
I request everybody to rise for the national
here. Jo here.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
