Legally India run by ex-Clifford Chance lawyer Kian Ganz cannot help exposing its biased, elitist, pro-establishment propagandist character.
In a piece titled Court Cuts: When two benches ran out of patience with Mathews J Nedumpara in one day
Legally India unfairly runs down activist lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara who had filed two bold petitions before the Supreme Court of India raising important issues about the functioning of the Indian judicial system. Starting with labeling and dismissing him as a "Maverick lawyer", and going on to inaccurate, partial, and one-sided reporting as to what transpired in Court, Legally India essentially mocks and belittles Nedumpara in what is also a grammatically incorrect article. In doing so, Legally India reduces the important but contentious legal issues and arguments raised by Nedumpara to caricature. Thankfully several lawyers have chosen to comment on Legally India and have objected to the malicious intent and tone and tenor of the Legally India write up.
A fair and good intentioned article would have reported the substantive legal issues and grounds raised by Nedumpara in his pleading and his substantive submissions in Court and his response to the statements from the Bench. Legally India should also have reported whether a fair hearing was accorded to Nedumpara and whether a reasoned order was or ought to have been passed. Such a report would have been useful for readers. Instead Legally India decided to do a hatchet job on Nedumpara.
One of the two petitions filed by Nedumpara can be read at http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2804409-Mathews-Nedumpura-writ-petition-128-2016.html
This petition raises some very relevant points about how the Indian judicial system is misused by the rich and powerful. Legally India could instead have spent some useful space on the contents of this writ petition rather than ridiculing Nedumpara.
Compare this to how Legally India run by Kian Ganz and funded by Big Law including Clifford Chance jumped in to defend the powerful Indian lawyer Harish Salve after he got exposed in the Panama Papers leak, see http://propagandaoutfitlegallyindia.blogspot.in/2016/04/why-high-flying-indian-lawyer-harish.html
Harish Salve, incidentally represented Indian film actor Salman Khan who was surprisingly acquitted in an under the influence drunk driving hit and run multiple murder case. Nedumpara rakes up the Salman Khan issue in his writ petition and points out how Salman Khan might have got favorable treatment compared to ordinary litigants before the Bombay High Court. Maybe Kian Ganz and Legally India sourced the Nedumpara hit job article from a lawyer close to Harish Salve. I would not be surprised if this indeed is the case.
Also here's why elitist Legally India where subaltern lawyers are routinely mocked for their poor English language skills by elite big law lawyers, might want to engage someone to proof-read their publications.
"But the petitions were so similar in tone and tenor, that both benches had a long arguments with him, before dismissing them."
and
"When both did not listen, Justice Misra asked them to come back at noon, and tell the bench whether he had disengaged his counsel or not." Which "both"? The preceding sentences only refer to Nedumpara.
No comments:
Post a Comment