By Pranjal Kamra, HNLU Raipur
A bitter reality
Here is a question for you – If you know that certain Mr. X (your friend) has committed a murder and you give him a place of hiding in your house or you choose to become a witness to protect him, then would you consider yourself guilty of shielding the criminal ?
Well, I expect that majority of you will answer that in the affirmative.
But sadly, if a lawyer does the same thing, that is to protect the guilty through a string of false evidences despite being fully aware of the involvement of the convict in the act, then why the hell is he shielded in the name of professional ethics?
The “human first” approach
When did “profession” became more important than truth, honesty and justice? What about the duties of lawyers as a citizen? After all every individual is a human first, and then a professional.
This is what I call the “human first approach”, as I strongly believe that every human should fulfill his duties as a citizen and a human first, and only then can he seek to achieve the finer virtues of professionalism.
“Professional ethics” is an instrument of ‘Profit maximization’.
The basic purpose of law and judiciary is to provide justice or “nyaya” and if the “nyaya” element is removed from law then what remains is not law, but merely a command.
Ethics is defined by Cambridge university as “a collection of principles of morality” so how can we term something as “professional ethics” when it’s essence is against the basic values of morality and humanity? What about the legal principle that states “even if a hundred culprits are let free, an innocent should not be wrongly convicted”.
Are we not promoting a system where the skill of the lawyer governs the innocence of an individual and not his acts? This system might be really beneficial for the lawyers, as it gives them a chance to enjoy huge returns on their advocacy skills and that is the reason I believe that “professional ethics” are nothing but profit maximizing initiatives which are twisted as per the market requirements.
It’s not just the lawyers
My problem with it is not limited to lawyers alone, but includes doctors, counselors and all other professionals as well!
But I am mostly concerned with doctors and lawyers because I feel that the basic purpose of these two professions is to serve humanity but the irony is that we market these two professions as “lucrative and rewarding” instead of “satisfying and sacred”.
A person should resolve to become a doctor or a lawyer to serve humanity and not to savor humanity because when a lawyer goes on a money minting sprint (regardless of certain reservations) then hundreds are denied justice and the society is crippled.
Share your write-ups at email@example.com