Fali Sam Nariman lied in the court!

Lawyers carry truth and honesty


: “You (lawyers) are an officer of the court. You carry a brief of truth and honesty. While presenting your client’s case, don’t try to compromise with the virtues. You owe an obligation to the other side too and you have to be fair,” the Chief Justice of Madras High Court A.K. Ganguly said on Thursday at Madurai urging that lawyers not to misguide the courts or present incorrect facts in an attempt to obtain favourable orders.

We do not know as to whether Mr. Ganguly was responding to What Fali Sam Nariman was arguing in favour of his client – the so-called Indian government run by UPA or the billion of people of India.

Fali Sam Nariman (January 10, 1929 -)


:

Now he is a Member of the Indian Parliament (Rajya Sabha). However, is also Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India and has practiced law for 47 years. He has been the President of the Bar Association of India since 1991. Since October 1994 he has served as President of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA); and Vice-Chairman of the Internal Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris since 1989. He has served as a member of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) since 1988. Mr. Nariman is widely respected for his expertise in constitutional law, international law, human rights and international arbitration. His many distinguished former positions include Chairman, Executive Committee of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), Geneva ,1995-97, and President of the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA), 1985-87. He was Additional Solicitor-General of India from May 1972 to June 1975, and resigned his office the day after the proclamation of the Internal Emergency of June 26, 1975. In January 1991 the President of India awarded him the Padma Bhushan, India’s second-highest Civil Honor, in recognition of his distinguished service in the field of jurisprudence. No more than four or five people receive this award in any single year.

“You (lawyers) are an officer of the court. You carry a brief of truth and honesty.


”

So if Nariman carried such brief of truth and honesty, he should not lied in the court that according to Kamba Ramayanam, Rama himself broke the bridge, as there is no such reference in it. By telling lie, has he not broken his integrity? Can anybody imagine that legal luminary of his stature could have told lie like that? But it has happened and the print and electronic media has already carried it as “brief of truth and honesty” and even now if the fact is pointed out that “Kamba Ramayanam” does not have such references, none would bother. Of course, CHO has already challenged him to give reference.

“While presenting your client’s case, don’t try to compromise with the virtues.

” But unfortunately, he has chosen a path to deride Rama as “superman” and so on. Evidently trying to justify his stand, he had even committed to assert that: “We have to deal with the issue factually and legally in a court of law. So, do not scare people by stating ‘faith’ time and again.” Now, again court may have to define what are the “virtues” that could be compromised or not by the lawyers in the court. The whole nation knows that what has been going on including the persons supporting and opposing Rama-sethu. So just because, he is arguing for his client, he need not tell lies and talk rubbish about Rama adding not to scare people stating faith time and again. Had the Indian Judiciary, judges and lawyers been secular or has been secularized, then there would not have been any such exigency.

Note, how Hussain was acquitted by the Delhi high Court, even though the learned Judge or advocate or othes know very well that Hussian would not depict Allah, daughters of Allah, Mohammed, his wives, Mary, Joseph, Jesus, Mary Magdalene etc., in the same way he painted Hindu Gods and Goddesses with the right of freedom of expression or artistic talent. But the Judge decided otherwise.

“You owe an obligation to the other side too and you have to be fair,

” The principles of natural justice is stressed here, but it is not necessary at all to tell Nariman all these things. However, he has been so obliged to the Govt-run by UPA, his client, he has decided not to listen to the other side.

After historians, now Indian advocates tell historical lies





:

It has been pointed out as to how the Indian historians have been lying when the question of Rama comes. Now, Indian advocates also join them. Unfortunately, it is unbelievable to note that legal luminary like Falai Sam Nariman would tell a lie like that in the court of law.

In Kamba Ramayana, Yuddhakandam, Padalam no.9, Mitchi Padalam, verses  1831 to 1840 (according to kandam) or 163 to 172 (according to Padalam), no where it is stated that Rama destroyed the bridge constructed by himself, that too in three parts. On the contrary, Rama explains to Sita about the significance and sanctity of Sethu.

Coming to “Padmapurana”, I have checked up with one Sanskrist scholar and HOD, Sanskrit of leading University and she says that there was no such reference. She also pointed out that Maharishi website has the full text of Padmapurana and the fact could be verified.

Thus, it is evident that Nariman has been misguided by some people and he has told lie in the court.

Fali could not have failed, but







“Kamba rasam” would have intoxicated him!




:

One senior advocate of Madras commented that he could not have failed, but he would have simply told what was briefed to him by his government friends. He doubts that Nariman may not be knowing Tamil, adding that he might have drunk “Kamba Rasam” excessively to bluff like that. Probably, T. R. Balu with his coterie of “Chennai historians” would have collected wrong information that could have resulted in the drama of lying in the court!

Is he obliged to his client?

He has been a Rajyasabha Member nominated by the government. So is he expected to get favourable decision from the court? That is the project should not be halted by any means. When it comes from Nariman, definitely, people are careful and cautious. Even I was very much hesitant to doubt whether he could have lied in the court. Therefore, there is a reason to believe that such government nominated, sponsored or affiliated, as indirectly, the politicians are the rulers running the country with their ideology and so on, these “political appointees” – Judges, lawyers etc., have to talk and behave like that. Earlier K. G. Balakrishnan asked series of questions questioning the Hindu faith openly in the court. Now it is coming through the mouth of Fali sam Nariman.

Let us see how the proceedings would go.

Responses