Killing of the lawyer of 26/11 accused

it was not a matter of defending the accused the law has to provide for a lawyer in criminal cases , if he doesn't get a lawyer he can remain unsentenced..guys the law was not known to the murderer of the lawyer else he would not have done it..:rolleyes:
 
The killing of the lawyer was the sophisticated expression of the frustration of the people.

Through, such lawyers, the terrorist find the loopholes in law and escape. The lawyers should not safeguard the terrorists.
 
we should not support any terrorist. why should a terrorist needed to get support when he is acting against society, which is too much extraordinary activity. no one have no right to take others life.
 
peterjpackiaraj said:
All the criminals or accused is having right to fix a lawyer. If he is not having any lawyer as per our rules court will give him a lawyer to defend him. But any persons personnel interest to defend those kind of people is not accepted. since their motive is against our country.
Click to expand...

yes, you are right. Why is he defending all the terrorists? If he defends only one or two terrorist, there is a scope of argument. He may defend them as they also may be innocent victims. But all the accused of terrorism can never be innocent victims. There is no point in supporting such lawyer.
 
Political games

Understanding the Indian political system is too hard as it is not governed by any rules but by complexities. The killing of the lawyer may have some political motives as it could give rise to some agendas that will work in favor of the opposition. Also it may not be so at all…it may have been another terror activity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top