The guarantors

Nowadays, the only question which clients ask is: 'Will you be able to get an Order in our favour?'

'I shall try my best' is no longer the acceptable answer. The client promptly pushes off to someone who is more 'positive' and 'proactive' in their approach. This has led to the birth of a tribe of 'guarantors' who guarantee success. And they are really doing very well in our profession. Their mantra is: 'If you have the cash, we have the solution!'

This game is frequently played in criminal cases, especially in bail applications but other jurisdictions are not untouched or exempt from participation.

The guarantor promises to get his customer or client the bail Order for an agreed amount which varies according to the perceived degree of difficulty based on the reputation and track record of the judge assigned to hear the case.

Any judge is bound to either grant or refuse bail. If bail is granted, the guarantor pockets the so-called 'facilitation fee'. If, on the other hand, the bail application is dismissed, the guarantor returns the 'facilitation fee' saying there was 'pressure from above', hence the judge has returned the money.

This way, the guarantor retains his reputation as an honest and sincere facilitator while the reputation of an honest and sincere judge, performing his or her job diligently, gets unfairly tarnished as being 'on the take'!

Today, I recount an instance when this 'happy scheme of things' unexpectedly went for a big toss. A young, brash gen-next criminal lawyer was riding the crest of his father's popularity wave. The father was famous or notorious depending on which end of the spectrum one viewed him from. He was a TV bulldog, always ready for a byte.

The son was just a 'puppy' but his pedigree automatically added volume to his 'barks' in the courts. As happens in such cases, in due course the puppy bit off much more than he could chew.

His application for anticipatory bail was before a Bench of two judges headed by a no-nonsense lady judge who had been a prosecutor. With her was a promotee judge, senior in age to her, and having considerable experience of conducting trials. It was by no stretch of imagination an easy Bench to fib or fool.

Advocate Puppy boasted to a client that his pop Advocate Bulldog knew the judges and he himself addressed them as "Aunty" and "Uncle" when he visited them at their homes or they visited his father's 'Kennel Villa'.

The customer/client was duly impressed when Advocate Puppy assured him that he would talk to the judges and set things up for a favourable result. Assured of a 'guaranteed result', the client begged and borrowed the whopping amount quoted from his relatives and friends and gave it to Advocate Puppy.

Advocate Puppy then applied for urgent circulation and got the matter listed for admission before the Bench. The customer/client inquired from Advocate Puppy if Advocate Bulldog would come to argue the matter. Advocate Puppy replied disdainfully: "Before Aunty and Uncle, I am more than enough."

On the day the case was argued, Advocate Puppy kept barking to impress the gallery. There used to be a small group of pre-paid media persons who covered every court appearance of father and son.

After indulging Advocate Puppy for an hour, the judges said: "We will pass the Order tomorrow."

Outside the courtroom, Advocate Puppy was already in a celebratory mode talking to media persons. He told them to be present the next day to report the court's Order even though he himself may reach the high court a bit late as he was going to be assisting Advocate Bulldog in the sessions court for a while.

Next day, the customer client was present along with one of the many juniors from Doggie Chambers. The matter was called out in due course 'for passing Orders'. The senior lady judge solemnly announced: "We are dismissing your application."

At this, the client loudly exclaimed: "Ye kaisey ho sakta hai? Aapne jitna bola thaa utna paisa mainey pahucha diya thaa!" (How can this be? I have paid the amount demanded by you.)

Everyone in the courtroom appeared stunned. The senior judge went red in the face and warned the applicant that she would haul him up for contempt in the face of the court. The junior judge, however, appeared curious and unwisely asked in open court: "Kisko paisa diya aapne?" (To whom did you make the payment?)

The client immediately replied: "Puppy vakeel sahab ko … jinke ghar aapka aana jaana rehta hai." (To Advocate Puppy, whose house you regularly visit.)

Now it was the junior milord's turn to go red in the face.

But the Bench wisely decided to announce a brief recess, rise and go into their chambers before any 'main course' was dished out by that customer/client to the 'public' which had just tasted the 'starters'.

The news of this incident spread like wildfire in the corridors of the high court but none from the media would dare to carry any report for fear of repercussions. One of Advocate Bulldog's media faithfuls, however, phoned him at once and narrated what had transpired.

No one knows what happened behind closed doors thereafter but what follows was what was gradually leaked out.

It must be appreciated that the wooden partitions in the chambers of milords cannot speak … but they certainly have ears.

Thus, we all heard: Advocate Puppy was summoned and given a severe tongue-lashing. The lady judge wanted to report him to the Bar Council but the junior judge pleaded that Advocate Puppy be forgiven as his entire career was at stake. Moreover, Advocate Bulldog was his old friend.

Advocate Bulldog had rushed to meet the two judges and the Chief Justice. It was reported that he had tendered an unconditional oral apology on behalf of Advocate Puppy and begged forgiveness.

Puppy was made to confess that he had indeed taken a fat fee from the customer/client but made to vehemently deny that he had hinted that most of it was for the judges.

Since everything hinged on his evidence, the customer/client was not just given back the 'facilitation fee' taken from him but his silence (and amnesia) was purchased at a very high price by Doggie Chambers.

The matter was then removed from that Bench's board. No report was ever made to the Bar Council in keeping with the noble tradition of our Bench and the Bar.

The junior judge was, however, marched off for two months from Mumbai to another city where the Bombay High Court had a Bench. This had led to some speculation at that time that there was indeed something more in what had transpired than met the eye. But it was all just speculation. There is no dearth of speculators in Mumbai.

One good effect of this case was that this long-established malpractice of touts in black robes 'making money in the names of judges' got thoroughly exposed.

Advocate Puppy laid low for some time. Even when he did resume his regular routine, he was not accorded the same respect at the Bar and could not find many takers as a 'guarantor'.

Advocate Bulldog, however, continues to be in the news off and on for right and wrong reasons. But his barks too are now no worse than his bytes.

Public memory is very short.

However, the propensity of avid gossip-mongers of our Bar for remembering such juicy stories before memory fades is considerably longer.

And this suits peddlers of law and laughter like Gobble D. Gook just fine.

Read more Antics from the Adalat here.

If you love the smell of paper along with spicy satire and the ring of laughter, Raju Moray's new book Tales of Law & Laughter is out now.