Unfair Tactics?

I had no doubt about the soundness of my advice, but I doubted very much my fitness for doing full justice to the case. I felt it would be a most hazardous undertaking to argue such a difficult case before the Supreme Court, and I appeared before the Bench in fear and trembling.

I had no doubt that my advice was sound, but I greatly doubted my ability to do the case full justice. I felt that arguing such a difficult case before the Supreme Court would be extremely risky. So I appeared before the judges in fear and trembling.

As soon as I referred to the error in the accounts, one of the judges said:

As soon as I mentioned the error in the accounts, one of the judges said:

‘Is not this sharp practice, Mr. Gandhi?’

‘Isn’t this a dishonest trick, Mr. Gandhi?’

I boiled within to hear this charge. It was intolerable to be accused of sharp practice when there was not the slightest warrant for it.

I was furious to hear the accusation. It was unbearable to be accused of dishonesty when there was no reason for it whatsoever.

‘With a judge prejudiced from the start like this, there is little chance of success in this difficult case,’ I said to myself. But I composed my thoughts and answered:

‘With a judge biased from the start, there is little chance of winning this difficult case,’ I said to myself. But I gathered my thoughts and answered:

‘I am surprised that your Lordship should suspect sharp practice without hearing me out.’

‘I am surprised, Your Lordship, that you suspect dishonest conduct without hearing me out.’

‘No question of a charge,’ said the judge. ‘It is a mere suggestion.’

‘There is no charge,’ said the judge. ‘It is only a suggestion.’

‘The suggestion here seems to me to amount to a charge. I would ask your Lordship to hear me out and then arraign me if there is any occasion for it.’

‘This suggestion seems to me to amount to an accusation. I ask Your Lordship to hear me out and then charge me if there is reason to do so.’

‘I am sorry to have interrupted you,’ replied the judge. ‘Pray do go on with your explanation of the discrepancy.’

‘I’m sorry I interrupted you,’ the judge replied. ‘Please go on explaining the discrepancy.’

I had enough material in support of my explanation. Thanks to the judge having raised this question, I was able to rivet the Court’s attention on my argument from the very start. I felt much encouraged and took the opportunity of entering into a detailed explanation. The Court gave me a patient hearing and I was able to convince the judges that the discrepancy was due entirely to inadvertence. They therefore did not feel disposed to cancel the whole award which had involved considerable labour.

I had plenty of material to support my explanation. Because the judge had raised the question, I was able to capture the court’s attention from the start of my argument. I felt encouraged and took the opportunity to explain the matter in detail. The court listened patiently, and I convinced the judges that the discrepancy was entirely an oversight. They therefore were not inclined to cancel the whole award, which had taken considerable work to prepare.

The opposing counsel seemed to feel secure in the belief that not much argument would be needed after the error had been admitted. But the judges continued to interrupt him, as they were convinced that the error was a slip which could be easily rectified. The counsel laboured hard to attack the award, but the judge who had originally started with the suspicion had come round definitely to my side.

The opposing lawyer seemed confident that he would not need to argue much once the error had been admitted. But the judges kept interrupting him because they were convinced that the error was a slip that could easily be corrected. The lawyer tried hard to challenge the award. But the judge who had initially been suspicious had now definitely come over to my side.

‘Supposing Mr. Gandhi had now not admitted the error, what would you have done?’ he asked.

‘What would you have done if Mr. Gandhi had not admitted the error?’ he asked.

‘It was impossible for us to secure the services of a more competent and honest expert accountant than the one appointed by us.’

‘We could not have found a more competent and honest expert accountant than the one we appointed.’

‘The Court must presume that you know your case best. If you cannot point out anything beyond the slip which any expert accountant is liable to commit, the Court will be loath to compel the parties to go in for fresh litigation and fresh expenses, because of a patent mistake. We may not order a fresh hearing when such an error can be easily corrected,’ continued the judge.

‘The Court must assume that you know your case best. The slip is the kind any expert accountant could make. If you cannot point to anything beyond it, the Court will be reluctant to order fresh litigation and expenses because of an obvious mistake. We may not order a new hearing when the error can be easily corrected,’ the judge continued.

And so the counsel’s objection was overruled. The Court either confirmed the award, with the error rectified, or ordered the arbitrator to rectify the error, I forget which.

So the court rejected the lawyer’s objection. The court either confirmed the award after correcting the error or ordered the arbitrator to correct it. I forget which.

I was delighted. So were my client and senior counsel; and I was confirmed in my conviction that it was not impossible to practise law without compromising truth.

I was delighted. So were my client and senior counsel. This strengthened my belief that it was possible to practice law without compromising the truth.

Let the reader however remember that even truthfulness in the practice of the profession cannot cure it of the fundamental defect that vitiates it.

But readers should remember that even practicing the profession truthfully cannot cure its fundamental flaw.