Leading lights of the legal profession may fume at the indictment handed down by the Chairman of the Law Commission, yet there would be many common folk who would endorse his contention that “justice” is available only to those with pockets deep enough to engage top counsel.

It may have been a harsh observation, but Justice BS Chauhan (retd.) did drive his point home when he observed, “they are so expensive nowadays and they charge per hour, per day, like taxis.” He also blamed “big lawyers” for discrimination in providing access to the legal system to rich and poor people: “big lawyers can defend any kind of greatest offence. I retired as a Supreme Court judge, if I have a case I cannot afford them”.

Justice Chauhan, when addressing a seminar on prisoners rights, asked “why is our legal system and bail conditions so complicated that a poor man cannot afford to look towards the courts, while a rich person can approach it even before his arrest” ~ a comment which immediately conjured up images of rich young brats, driving fancy family cars after downing more than a couple of pegs, immediately getting bail after running over people sleeping on a pavement because they had no other place to call home.

The other point he made was that the continued use of the English language in lower courts worked to the disadvantage of the average litigant ~ they did not understand what was going on, could easily be taken for a ride.

The point about “big” actually cuts across the professions ~ leading doctors or chartered accountants also produce “results”.

Often the reputation of a person making the case carries more weight than the arguments advanced in its favour. To stretch a point, the same could be said of journalism too ~ the comments of a senior editor count for more than a similar point made by a rookie reporter. Yet there is a difference in courts, the top lawyers have created an aura around their “club”, to which membership is heavily restricted.

Yet the “Bench” is no less guilty of discrimination, for even if a relatively junior counsel presents a wellresearched and effectively argued case it often received little appreciation from the judge. The buzz is that certain judges have a “soft spot” for particular counsel ~ and at the risk of earning the displeasure of their Lordships let it be said that there is a degree of “fixing” in the registrar office to ensure before which Bench a particular case is listed. Sure those suggestions could be forcefully rejected, but what Justice Chauhan has said cannot be wished away.

Yet, another question arises ~ what is the Law Commission doing to facilitate the poor getting a fair deal in court?