On Kasab's Death: Krishna Iyer J. Statement

"Society made him a criminal and a murderer''

Ajmal Kasab was hanged to death in the early hours of November 21 as a terrorist and as a killer. When he grew up in rural Pakistan, he had had only his primary education, and his parents were poor.

He was doubtless driven to despair, eventually becoming a hardened operator. Society made him a criminal and a murderer. He was of course guilty of the 26/11 round of killings and havoc in Mumbai.

Nevertheless, killing him secretly should be seen as injustice. Handing down the death sentence is a crime, and resort to the means of hanging makes it even more horrendous. In many ways, we are all guilty — all of humanity that abetted his killing and burial but could not reform him.

In my humble view, all humane societies, especially a society that swears by the Indian Constitution that is rooted in compassion, should abolish judicial executions. Mahatma Gandhi was against it. So was Jawaharlal Nehru.

Much more humane and touching has been the kindly attitude of Sonia Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi was brutally killed, and some of those who plotted and moved for the murder were sentenced to death.

Sonia Gandhi, a mother with a gentle heart, wrote thus to President K.R. Narayanan, spelling out her views against the hanging of her husband’s murderers.

She wrote: “[The] Supreme Court of India has confirmed the death sentence on four persons who were responsible for the assassination of my beloved husband Rajiv Gandhi.

“Our family does not think that the four held responsible for the heinous murder of my dear husband must be hanged. My son, my daughter or myself do not wish that the four murderers be hanged.

“In particular, we do not at all wish Nalini, mother of an eight-year-old child, to be hanged. I am aware how my children miss their father and we do not want another child to lose its parents together and get orphaned.

“As you are well aware, my children Rahul and Priyanka and myself are suffering untold mental agony day in, day out due to the loss of our beloved Rajiv. But neither my children nor myself would like the persons responsible for my husband’s tragic end to be hanged.

“Hence I humbly request you to stop their hanging and grant them pardon when they seek your clemency.”

When I was Kerala Home Minister in the 1950s, I had occasion to handle some pleas for commutation of the death sentence. In all those cases, I favoured the avoidance of the death sentence. Even as the State Governor was trying to express his views in one particular case, I intervened and said, no. In two cases I had strongly opposed the death sentence, and my view appealed to Lord Scarman, sitting in the Privy Council. He wrote to me an unusual letter mentioning how he was deeply touched by my passionate opposition to the death sentence.

Indeed, half the number of nations of our world have abolished the death sentence — including Great Britain. Lord Mountbatten was treacherously assassinated. But the assassin was not given the death sentence. For, Great Britain had abolished the death penalty. Even in the United States, many States have no provision for the death sentence. I have no doubt in my heart that Gandhiji’s country should not have killed Ajmal Kasab, who was after all young, and belonged to a poor family. Pakistani or not, he was a human being.

CONSENT : The most controversial term in Medico-Legal jurisprudence

CONSENT is the most controversial term in the field of Medico-Legal Jurisprudence. Consent of the patient has an immense practical importance to the clinicians. Doctors may do nothing to or for a patient without valid consent. This principle is applicable not only to surgical operations but also to all forms of medical treatment and to diagnostic procedures that involve intentional interference with the person. Given the volume of papers, treatises, and books on the subject of informed consent, it will only be possible to broad brush most elements of the concept. We have put most of comments, examples and cases as to how it affects medical practitioners and patients.

The term “Consent” in itself is the most controversial subject in Legal Jurisprudence. Consent is necessary for every medical examination, which should be obtained in or in the presence of disinterested party. Barring physical examination, any medical procedure requires written consent. Written consent should refer to one specific procedure and not blanket permission on admission to hospital. It is on the safer side to take the consent of spouse if the operation destroys or limits sexual functions. While it is not legally necessary it is good medical practice to consult with relatives of patient in patient’s best interest and ones this has been established then doctor can continue to give treatment in good faith. Consultation, consent and clinical confidence will never put the doctor in tort fessors cases. In the era of advancement of knowledge and technique the belief that as long as the patient signs everything will be, well misguided, if the doctor is not having reasonable care and skill.

It is also to be noticed that Consent and Medical Negligence are two different aspect which always conflict with each other.The Concept of Negligence with consent in Medical Jurisprudence and Negligence with consent in general sense is two different thing.Medical Jurisprudence had its hindrance with the former.Negligence with consent has to limit its scope so that it couldnot overlap with the private defence.

"Who knows better than the man himself as to what is irresistible to his body".

In general sense, The statement is appropriate.But in case of Medical Jurisprudence, this does not apply.

"Doctor knows better than the man about his internal skirmish".

This amounts create difference between Negligence with consent in Medico-Legal jurisprudence and Negligence with consent in other multi-disciplinary approach.

Hence,it is expedient to define “consent” in context with its implication in the subject-matter.The Concept of Hedonism also plays a major role in determining the consent of the parties involved in any kind of deed.

Consent is fundamental and established principle in the Indian law. Every person has the right to determine what shall be done to his body. Self-defense of body (IPC sections 96 to 102, 104, 106) provides right to the protection of bodily integrity against invasion by other. All medical procedures, including examinations, diagnostic procedures and medical research on patients potentially acts of bodily trespass or assault (IPC 351), in the absence of consent or statutory sanction.³ Treatment and diagnosis cannot be forced upon anyone who does not wish to receive them except in statutory sanction.

In India at present legal cases concerning absence of consent are rare. Such cases will increase in the coming years as medical techniques become more advanced, complicated, medical care becomes more widespread and level of awareness and education of population increases.

Indian Democracy

India is the world’s largest democratic country and it has created a landmark in front of the other nation . One thing the whole worlds admire is the administrative policy of India .Being a federal constitutionalism, Indian has central and state government but the system has been framed in such a manner that none have the absolute power over each other.

In the past few decades, a drastic alteration has overshadowed the Indian democracy and questioned the Indian democracy. Not only in India, but the concept of democracy has become dynamism in the whole world .I personally admire that it is impossible to adopt complete democracy.Now ,what we have adopted is ultimately the shape of Utilitarian Theory.

With the advancement in life and incessant growth, development and thinking of the people have made us realized that the present democracy would only create havoc and no remedies. It is the bitter truth that none of the party could get the majority in the cabinet. When we try to assess what are the basis criteria and on what basis the political party do their campaign, it is always noticed that they could exceed any limit for their vote bank.

The defect what I feel in Indian political system is that Stability of Governance. It is seen that in the few decade none of the national parties have obtained clear majority. According to my point of view, Coalition Government is the worst form of Government. Our leaders must realize that they are the representatives of the people and instead of indulging into the nonsense politics must try to uplift their own constituency. Every Member of Parliament get a sum of remuneration for uplifting their constituency, they must utilize those sum and bring up the people of locality.

It is to be understood that in the concept of democracy, no one is supreme but at present  it seems that there is a race among the three wings of the government as to who is supreme. It is Legislature, Executive or Judiciary. There is a great difference between Direct Democracy and Indirect Democracy.

While  touching the preamble of the constitution of India, one thing I found it is not clear whether the constitutional makers wanted India to be a democratic country or not and that is why the term “Democratic” was inserted in the year 1976 through 42^nd Amendment. It could assess that the constitutional makers did not want complete democracy at that stage. According to my point view, it was certainly appropriate to some extent because just after the independence the, the citizen of India were not capable enough to hold the country democratically. Even practically, we are not capable enough to run the democratically now.

We need Renaissance now, we lack social reformers, we lack scholars, we lack philosophers, we lack political thinkers, we lack pious people. No doubt, we accelerated ourselves and now considered to be a developed nation but the drawback what I noticed is only Brain drain and not Brain gain. We feel proud when we see that an Indian born hold the post of ministry in Barack Obama’s Cabinet. We feel proud when we notice that an Indian born is the president of the country. Is it the sense of pride or being ashamed of?

We all agree that there is a need of stable government to develop and progress in the state. Now gearing up towards history, we noticed that Monarchical form of government was more stable than any other form of government. Even in India, the great leaders like Chandragupta Maurya, Akbar and Asoka, they reined for almost two score but when we try to cite the example for present democratic setup, hardly anyone complete a decade or more. The Question arises “why is it so?”.Are the people’s representatives not competent enough to hold their position for a longer period working for the people?

Critically, Democracy is the best form of government. Every individual has the right to contribute for its own nation and it is only possible through democracy. It is always noticed that whether it is right or wrong, it is the majority that counts. But it is not always necessary to blindly follow the majority as well. Unless majority of the people have the understanding of the administrative and economic growth of the country, it is really impossible to have complete democracy.

As a matter of fact, it is ridiculous to notice that we nominate the representative of the constituency without any qualifications. We have the system to reservation to the run country as well. We all consider ourselves to be an Indian but when the time comes to show unity, we disintegrate ourselves in terms of race, caste and putting other different criteria of obligations. One of the most important tool of democracy in india at present stage is Election.

Democracy is one of the most difficult way of governanace. It is known fact that one cannot completely satisfy the human need .While going through one of the article, there was one sentence which defined the concept of Democracy. It was stated that In Democracy, it is not necessary that everybody should sing the same song. This is certainly how we can define Democracy.

Democracy couldnot be maintained unless its essential element come into place.The most essential element of Democracy in India is Election.Indian Constitution talks about the concept of Universal Adult Franchise. Every individual above the age of 18 have the right to cast the vote and elect their own representative.

One thing that always poke my mind is that whether democracy is a kind of government or mere philosophy.What I feel even if there is monarchy but the head work according to the mandate of people, we can consider it as Democracy.Democracy must not be interpreted in rthe form of governance, rather it should be the philosophy for every governance.

Scope of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act,2005

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives .A popular government, without popular information or the means of obtaining it, is but  a prologue to a farce or tragedy , or perhaps both.”

             ……………….James Madison

Right to privacy is an important natural need of every human being , no one can compel any individual to reveal his personal information which is not of public importance.Glancing upon this view , Right to privacy could be stated as mentioned under Art.21 in the term ”personal liberty” .Every individual has the right to expression but at the same time , they have the right not to express as well.

Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act,2005 states as ”Notwithstanding anything contained in this act , there shall be no obligation to give any citizen information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest , or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority , as the case may be , is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

One of the major component of the sec.8(1)(j) is that it exempts the information which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individual unless the PIO or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.It is to be noted that this section is specifically concerned about “the privacy of individual and no other bodies or institutions.”It cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions , societies, organizations or corporate .This shows that privacy to some extent could only be maintained by an individual and no other body could entertain this power.

At one end, Privacy acts as basis for claiming exemption from revealing the information at the same time Preamble to the RTI ACT provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities and in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.One of the recent case which was in focus is “While the RTI application wanted details of Quraishi's assets and liabilities from 2005-06 to 2010-11, the Commission cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act while rejecting the request”.Disclosure of information such as assets of the public servants , which is routinely collected by the public authority and routinely provided by the public servants cannot be construed as invasion of Privacy , but some it worked as an obstacle  to mere Right to privacy.In the democratic set up, it is required an informed citizenry, transparency of information which is of public importance and to curb the corruption.But at the same time the state has no right to invade the privacy of an individual without his permission.

In the Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00426 of Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Supreme Court of India,the Commission held that even Supreme Court and High court judges having come within the purview of the RTI Act,2005 have been directed to disclose their assets and it has been put into practice but before implementation again it was put under the case of privacy as a basis for claiming exemption.The work of CIC is really appreciable but sometimes this might lead to conflicting with our fundamental right because the term’privacy” as well “right to information has not been defined in a wider sense.It completely depends upon the interpretation and precedents.

Though it seems that section 8(1)(j) works as Privacy  for claiming exemption but as read from the act ‘unwarranted invasion of privacy’ it is again to be noted here that actually who declared the information as unwarranted invasion of privacy or of public importance, it is completely at the discretion of the commission to decide whether there is a unwarranted invasion of privacy or is required for transparency considering public importance.

There are some extraordinary situations where the State may be allowed to invade on the privacy of a Citizen. In those circumstances special provisos of the law apply, always with certain safeguards. Therefore it can be argued that where the State routinely obtains information from Citizens, this information is in relationship to a public activity and will not be an intrusion on privacy. Therefore we can state that disclosure of information such as assets of a Public servant, -which is routinely collected by the Public authority and routinely provided by the Public servants, cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. There will only be a few exceptions to this rule which might relate to information which is obtained by a Public authority while using extraordinary powers such as in the case of a raid or phone-tapping.And there lies the loophole where section 8(1)(j) cannot be applied.

There must be a kind of balance between all such act and law so as to restrict much more interpretation over right to privacy.Providing a wider scope to certain subject sometimes misuse the context and this must be curbed out.The main problem arises when there is an existence of any kind of exemption as in this case , this broadly inflict the situation to worsen it should be kept in mind that that there must not be liberal loophole and Law is meant to govern and abide by all the people and therefore,there must not be any kind of exemption except the needy people.

Divorce to Medico,Married to Law

After 20 years in practice as a physician, a Pennsylvania doctor turned to a new career as an attorney after his arrest five years ago on a prescription drug charge.

Lawrence Kansky, then 50, felt he should never have been charged concerning what he describes as an unwitting technical violation of his Drug Enforcement Administration license, by having prescription drugs for his medical practice sent to his home. However, he retired and pleaded no contest in the controlled-substance case in exchange for a six-month probation sentence and eventual expungement of his record.

A religious man who believes things happen for a reason, he found himself drawn toward a new vocation as a lawyer.

When he started classes at University of Baltimore in Maryland, he expected to take notes with pencil and paper. Other students were using laptops. Kansky added a word processing course to his schedule of classes.

And "I studied my butt off," he tells the newspaper. "I was driven to succeed."

This year, after graduating with honors in January, he went into practice in Wilkes-Barre with another lawyer, specializing in personal injury and criminal defense matters.

Although he could regain his medical license, he feels it would create conflicts for him and he expects to make a difference helping others trapped in situations similar to the one his criminal case created for him.

"I miss my practice but I'm still serving people," he says.

Was expecting more stringent Judicial Standard and Accountability Bill

There are bulk of Articles under the Constitution of India which influences judicial appointment and decision-making which seems politically viable.  Idea behind establishing judicial standard committee is to create a transparent system in the smooth functioning of the democratic country .The ideology of Democracy has set a belief in the mind of the throng that only people can change the world either run by moron or mentor.

Such amendment in the field of judiciary is not only confined to India but even Australia is planning for Sentencing Policy Bill which will give the judiciary guidelines on penalties is one of a string of new laws the government will introduce next year(2013).Such guidelines could be fruitful even in india and this will try to reduce a kind of uncertainty and biasness that e feces today.We have to go for constitutional amendement so that we could set up some Constitutional-Democratic mechanism

It is totally impermissible for the legislature to strike upon the independence and fearlessness of the judiciary. A judge of a superior court cannot be treated as an employee of the government. The present Bill is incapable of salvage and must be rejected in totality. In a system where half the litigants must necessarily lose their cases, and where most of the complaints against judges are frivolous and made by disgruntled litigants, this bill, if implemented, would mark the beginning of the end of the judiciary. Justice Verma has rightly that any machinery for investigation should be free from the executive, as the principle of judicial independence should not be compromised. Our Constitution has made various provisions to ensure that the judiciary is completely insulated from the executive. This concept of separation of powers is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and cannot be changed. Even in the present regime involving removal of judges, the adjudication of the complaint is by the judiciary whose findings form the basis for eventual consideration by the Parliament.

It is true that judicial commissions exist in other countries like the U.S. and Canada, but their reach does not extend to the apex court. Also, adopting such structures from other countries without having regard to the unique conditions existing in ours, is untenable and fraught with the danger of destabilizing our delicate constitutional balance. The term ‘misbehaviour’ should not be rigidly defined and must be an inclusive definition, i.e. a definition where it is possible to add various categories of misbehavior as they become apparent[1]. The Bill also provides a list of standards of judicial conduct to which all judges are expected to adhere. Sixteen of the 18 enumerated standards are derived from the “Restatement of the Values of Judicial Life” adopted at a Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court on May 7, 1997. However, the very idea of statutorily providing for judicial standards, irrespective of their content, is violative of judicial independence.

Demands for change to existing systems in the judiciary must be met rationally, bearing in mind the objectives sought to be achieved. The first site of change must be in the process of judicial appointments. The present system where judges of the superior courts are chosen based on undisclosed criterion in largely unknown circumstances reflects an increasing democratic deficit. The legitimacy of the judiciary ultimately flows from public support, which cannot be maintained without a transparent and open selection process.

The guiding principle should always be like that there should be accountability and must be, but let it always be commensurate with judicial independence and impartiality. Ultimately, the appropriate balance between competing principles must be found in something that is best suited to our constitutional setup and is, in that sense, uniquely Indian. The citizens of India deserve no less.

Still, initiation taken by our lawmakers and their commendable work in strengthening third pillar is highly appreciable.We cannot revamp everything in one shot, it is slow and steady process.We cannot directly intrude upon the privacy of any institution.We have framed each institution independent of each other and their work and activities should be prasied much rather being criticised.We must have full faith in our own institution and abide by the role and measures taken by them at each step.

---

[1]Statement by Soli Sorabjee (former Attorney General of India)

Alternate Dispute Resoluton: An Experiment to demonstrate new Judicial Procedure

"Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbours to compromise wherever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser - in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough."

---- Abraham Lincoln

Our judicial system is based on the Anglo-Saxon model of jurisprudence, better known as the adversarial system of law. Under this model, two opposing parties represented by their respective counsel, present conflicting views as a necessary adjunct to the pursuit of justice.

The Constitution of India aims to provide free legal aid to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic inability. India’s socio-economic conditions warrant highly motivated and sensitized legal service programs as large population of consumers of justice are either poor or ignorant, illiterate or backward, and as such, at a disadvantageous position.

In a civilized society, principles of natural justice along with the “Rule of Law” should result in complete justice in case of a dispute. Rule of Law is defined as the state of order in which events conform to the law. It is an authoritative, legal doctrine, principle, or precept applied to the facts of an appropriate case. These definitions give us the indication that the Rule of Law is a authoritative concept which might lead to a win-lose situation in cases of dispute. Therefore, ADR uses the principles of natural justice in consonance with the Rule of Law, in order to create a favorable atmosphere of a win-win situation. This is much needed in countries like India where litigation causes a great deal of animosity between the parties due to the agony caused by the long-standing litigation. ADR, thus, gains its momentum in India today.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 marked an epoch in the struggle to find an alternative to the traditional adversarial system of litigation in India. It heralded the dawn of a new regime of negotiated settlement and consensual dispute resolution, as a means of combating the insuperable impediments posed by the decrepit and anachronistic civil justice system.

The focus is laid on Section 89 of CPC, 1908, its need and the revolutionary changes has brought in terms of ADR practices in India. The paper further discuss Article 39-A of the Constitution of India and ways to realize it by the state. The paper appreciates the role of Legislature in promoting ADR practices and also analyses role played by judiciary in this context.

The concept of Lok Adalat was pushed back into oblivion in last few centuries before independence and particularly during the British regime. Now, this concept has, once again, been rejuvenated. It has, once again, become very popular and familiar amongst litigants. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, pursuant to the constitutional mandate in Article 39-A of the Constitution of India, contains various provisions for settlement of disputes through Lok Adalat. Thus, the ancient concept of Lok Adalat has, now, statutory basis. This is the system which has deep roots in Indian legal history and its close allegiance to the culture and perception of justice in Indian ethos.

The term "alternative dispute resolution" or "ADR" is often used to describe a wide variety of dispute resolution mechanisms that are short of, or alternative to, full-scale court processes.It is a flexible judicial process which tends to support court reform, improve access to justice, increase disputant satisfaction with outcomes, reduce delay, and reduce the cost of resolving disputes.The utility of ADR in resolving the problems of the traditional litigative system has been emphasized and the focus has also been placed on the successes of Arbitration ,Mediation and Conciliation.

The rationale behind the adoption of a system of ADR is undoubtedly the need to find a method of circumventing and eventually effacing the tremendous problems which beset the litigative system. These problems can be broadly classified into: delay, expense,  rigidity of procedures and  a reduction in the participatory role of parties.

Justice warren Burger, the former CJI of American Supreme Court  once rightly stated “The harsh truth is that we may be on our way to a society overrun by hordes of lawyers, hungry as locusts, and bridges of Judges in numbers never before contemplated. The notion that ordinary people want black robed judges, well-dressed lawyers, fine paneled court rooms as the setting to resolve their disputes, is not correct. People with legal problems like people with pain, want relief and they want it as quickly and inexpensively as possible”.

While the court-connected ADR movement flourished in the U.S. legal community, other ADR advocates saw the use of ADR methods outside the court system as a means to generate solutions to complex problems that would better meet the needs of disputants and their communities, reduce reliance on the legal system, strengthen local civic institutions, preserve disputants' relationships, and teach alternatives to violence or litigation for dispute settlement. In 1976, the San Francisco Community Boards program was established to further such goals. This experiment has spawned a variety of community-based ADR projects, such as schoolbased peer mediation programs and neighborhood justice centers.

In the 1980s, demand for ADR in the commercial sector began to grow as part of an effort to find more efficient and effective alternatives to litigation. Since this time, the use of private arbitration, mediation and other forms of ADR in the business setting has risen dramatically, accompanied by an explosion in the number of private firms offering ADR services.

It is more noticeable whether judicial attitudes and the legal culture in the country are friendly to ADR, how public attitude is influencing ADR and hindrances faced in introducing speedy justice through ADR.

ADR programs can support not only rule of law objectives but also other development objectives, such as economic development, development of civil society and support for disadvantaged groups, by facilitating the resolution of disputes that are impeding progress towards these objectives.

Though ADR programs have put new impression as a judicial procedure apart from regular court.It has various demerits as well as limitations.

·         ADR programs do not set precedent, refine legal norms, or establish broad community or national standards, nor do they promote a consistent application of legal rules.

·         ADR programs cannot correct systemic injustice, discrimination, or violations of human rights.

·         ADR programs do not work well in the context of extreme power imbalance between parties.

·         ADR settlements do not have any educational, punitive, or deterrent effect on the population.

·         It is inappropriate to use ADR to resolve multi-party cases in which some of the parties or stakeholders do not participate.

·         ADR may undermine other judicial reform efforts.

Lawyers and clients often have divergent attitudes and interests concerning settlement. This may be a matter of personality (one may be a fighter, the other a problem solver) or of money. In some circumstances, a settlement is not in the client’s interest.

For example, the client may want a binding precedent or may want to impress other potential litigants with its firmness and the consequent costs of asserting claims against it. Alternatively, the client may be in a situation in which there are no relational concerns; the only issue is whether it must pay out money; there is no pre-judgement interest; and the cost of contesting the claim is less than the interest on the money. In these, and a small number of situations, settlement will not be in the client’s interest.

Law schools train their students more for conflict than for the arts of reconciliation and accommodation and therefore serve the profession poorly. Already, lawyers devote more time to negotiating conflicts than they spend in the library or courtroom and studies have shown that their efforts to negotiate were more productive for the clients. Over the next generation, society’s greatest opportunities will in tapping human inclinations towards collaboration and compromise rather than stirring our proclivities for competition and rivalry. If lawyers are not leaders in marshalling co-operation and designing mechanisms which allow it to flourish, they will not be at the centre of the most creative social experiments of our time.

There is an old Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times". From a legal point of view, we cannot think of a time in the recent past that is more interesting than the present. Whatever our individual views may be on the merits or otherwise of the changes that are taking place, there is no doubt that we are experiencing a sea change in all aspects of the law and this change is not merely one of practice and convenience, but of fundamental underlying theory as well.

Let me conclude with a sound but an imperative caveat that we must be ever mindful that "Yesterday is not ours to recover, but tomorrow is ours to win or lose", and, therefore, let us get together, stand united, and strengthen our Bench and Bar irrevocable unique partnership and make collaborative, concerted, cooperative, creative, collective and cohesive endeavours in popularising, proliferating and pioneering, concept and philosophy of important institution - alternative dispute resolution mechanism - so as to strengthen our pluralistic democratic values, rule of law and thereby invigorate the commandment, "Justice shall never be rationed". Let us therefore make all efforts to advance and strengthen "equal access to justice", the heart of the Constitution of India, a reality.