In the wake of the abduction and murder of lawyer, allegedly in relation to the land dispute, a Pune based lawyer has sent a letter petition to the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court seeking security for lawyers.
Stating that the profession of advocacy often leads to hostilities, commission of such heinous crime cannot be tolerated, Prithviraj Pradeep Phalke addressed in the letter.
He wrote;
“If protectors of law are subjected to such open hunting grounds in the hands of adversaries then the objectives of the Public Interest Litigation, The Right to Information Act, The Lokpal Act, The Legal Aid Act will be defeated as lawyers in fear of assassination and such otheroffences against their body and property will reprimand them from any pro bono activities”.
Umesh More was a practising lawyer in the District and Sessions Court, Shivajinagar, Pune. He was abducted on October 01from court premises and was later strangulated to death, dumped and burnt. He was a lawyer of merit and was also involved in many pro bono litigation.
Phalke in his letter petition said that this alleged act of abducting the lawyer from the court premises and then assassination of lawyer cannot be possible without the tactic support of law and order mechanism of the city.
This incident allegedly “also involve also involves certain officers from the Revenue department of Government of Maharashtra. But such government officers suspected in such heinous offence of executing an officer of the court are let free to destroy evidence and implicate their coercion further on the demised lawyer’s family and friends.”
Phalke in his letter petition sought an independent judicial inquiry into the matter in order to ensure that investigation meets the ends of natural justice.
He also wrote;
“The profession of advocacy certainly leads to hostilities among councils due to heated arguments or any adversarial judgements or orders in conclusion thereof. But such hostilities rarely lead to such heinous offence of assassinating the opposing voice in legal fraternity. This offence committed against an officer of the court as he had raised his voice against the evils of corruption prevalent in the society is spurious act to shut any voice against such evils.”
