I have had occasions to hear three Judges on issue whether Judges should be addressed as ‘My Lords’ by lawyers while conducting cases before them.

1) An SC Judge asked, “Why do you treat us on a higher level? We are not Gods. We are also like you and we are also fallible. We also have weaknesses like you.”

2) A petition was filed to direct Bar Council of India to issue circular that lawyers should not address judges as ‘My Lords!’

The judge said,”Who is asking you to address us as my lords? We do not need that you address us as My Lords!”

Petition was withdrawn with liberty to make representation to Bar Council.
Representation was made and Bar Council issued circular that lawyers should not address judges as ‘My Lords’ but should address as ‘Sir’.

3) A Delhi High Court Judge put a notice out side his court that lawyers should address him as ‘Sir’ and not as “My Lords”.

Still habits die hard. Lawyers continue to address judges as ‘My Lords’ and some judges still insist that they should be addressed as judges.

Haresh Raichura
4/10/12

2G judgement came. Licenses were cancelled. Fresh auction of telecom spectrum was ordered.

To overcome this judgement, Govt filed review petition.

Then it withdrew review petition and made Presidential Reference to Supreme Court.

In haste, it forgot to mention word “DOUBT” in Reference.

At hearing, an objection was raised that since words “Doubt has arisen” not mentioned in Reference it was not maintainable.

Arguments before judges went on for days whether Reference ought to be rejected as word “Doubt” is not mentioned.

Finally, Judges held that it does not matter if word “Doubt” is not mentioned.

Out of 208 page judgement, 70 pages are written on whether Reference was maintainable or not! (1/3 Judgement)!

If while drafting Reference, word “doubt” was mentioned, so much judicial time would have saved!!!

I therefore smiled on reading this Reference Judgement. 🙂 Omission of one word can create lot of problems in legal matters!

Haresh Raichura
3/10/2012