INTERPRETATION OF LAW

Judiciary is the    ultimate hope and trust for common    man.    When he is  being       exploited        he tries to    approach    the judiciary the earliest possible.      No  common man is an expert    in       law.      He also  is not conversant      with    the          highly intrigued legal          procedures.  He
needs to have the help of a   person for this. He has to buy this help in the form of a lawyer.       Since  this     is a priced   service   and    because       of scarcity of money he is    constrained to pick a cheap one. Like any   market commodity   legal      services      also become , therefore, a        commodity
with quality variations. While     some
lawyers charge fees in         hundreds,
some others in thousands and  a few
others charge in lakhs, may       be for
the same case.

These three categories of      lawyers
are capable of changing the        final
verdict or not could not be proved so
far, as there is only one verdict at one
instance and cannot    be compared. While      the              prescribed     law
under which an issue is argued for or against and the         decider remains unchanged     the  final  verdict could
also not be changed. Here arises the
question of engaging the       reputed
and high valued lawyers by       many
individuals, firms and   governments.
We may have to believe that there is
something in it.       One argument to prop up this is that a  learned lawyer
can gather and present the  required
evidence in order and    convincingly
present in front of the     adjudicator.
However this    cannot   be          just
accepted for    this   can  only  show
deteriorated           knowledge     and efficiency of   other   lawyers      who charge less amount of fee.

There is     however,   a             strong
conviction      even among   the legal
community that    if   a        particular
lawyer is at the side of an    offender
he may escape conviction.      There
may be umpteen            examples to support      this view. This cannot be    accepted by anyone in the open.This
cannot also be put under debate. It  
is therefore, to be discussed  within the judicial community.

While        concluding this, it is to be
believed that it is neither the       law  nor the  calibre of the      lawyer that determines the true verdict of cases
but it is the expression      of the law
that can be mostly   interpreted with
wide variations. Should we look into
this matter        for a comprehensive
discussion to avoid fluctuations and to give more   stability to our law?

KV George