I dare -Written by Dr. Kiran Bedi

iii
iii Do not print (final)
HAY HOUSE INDIA
Australia Canada Hong Kong India
South Africa United Kingdom United States
I DARE!
Kiran Bedi
Revised and Enlarged Edition

85
85 Do not print (final)
Chapter 11
The Lawyers Strike – at Kiran:
She Strikes Back
PERHAPS THE MOST TENSE, TIRESOME AND NERVE-RACKING TIME THAT
Kiran had to endure during her term of service was during the
lawyers’ strike that commenced in January 1988 and continued
through June that year. However, the legal battle in and out of the
courtrooms ended only in April 1990.
The events that triggered off the strike were as follows. Around
2 p.m., on 15 January 1988, Ratna Singh, an English honours student
of St Stephen’s College, New Delhi, came out of the toilet of the
ladies’ common room and saw a man wearing a green checked coat
fleeing from the place where she had left her handbag.
Sensing mischief she gave chase and shouted for help. Kavita
Issar, also an English honours student, saw her chasing the man in
the green coat and joined the shouting. Anand Misra, a second-year
chemistry honours student, heard the two girls shouting and caught
the person whom they were chasing. The group was joined by Anand
Prasad (second-year history honours) and Manjusha Damle (final
year Sanskrit honours). Ratna Singh checked her handbag and
declared that Rs 110, a cassette tape and her doctor’s prescription
were missing. The items were found on the person of the man they
had apprehended. The college authorities were informed and the
vice-principal of the college, Horace Jacob, duly notified the
Roshanara Police Station. A subinspector of police, Kawal Singh,
soon appeared on the scene. The culprit accepted his crime and

86 I DARE!
maintained that he was an educated unemployed youth and had
therefore resorted to stealing. He also admitted, in his own
handwriting, to having stolen some money from girls’ handbags
a day earlier in the same place. A Delhi Transport Corporation
(DTC) bus pass in the name of Manjusha Damle was also
recovered from him. He gave a written statement wherein he
stated that his name was Rakesh Kumar and that he lived at
E-40, Model Basti, Delhi. A first information report (FIR), No.
9/88/U/S380/111/IPC was lodged with the Roshanara Police
Station. During his stay at the police station, however, he gave
another name and another address.
The investigating officer apparently knew that the apprehended
person had been giving false names and addresses and so the former
felt that the latter might try to give him the slip. However, since he
was taking the accused in a DTC bus (which is always very crowded)
he took the extra precaution of handcuffing him for the period till
he produced him before the court. At the court, however, all hell
seemed to break loose. Some of the lawyers present there recognized
the handcuffed man to be one Rajesh Agnihotri, a lawyer practising
at the Tees Hazari courts. The investigating officer was manhandled
and shouted at. On learning the identity of the accused he, however,
promptly removed the handcuffs. Metropolitan Magistrate Pradeep
Chaddha dismissed all charges against the accused on grounds of
lack of evidence. He also directed the commissioner of police, Delhi,
to take action against the concerned police officers.
‘This was a surprising decision, as the production was not for a
judgement but only for remand or bail. This was a clear judgement
of “NOT GUILTY”, without looking at the evidence,’ pointed out
Kiran later.
***
The very same day, 15 January 1988, the lawyers of the Tees Hazari
courts struck work. Hari Chand, the president of the Delhi Bar
Association, declared that Rajesh Agnihotri had been falsely
implicated by the students of St Stephen’s College. This was because
Rajesh Agnihotri had been involved in a scuffle with the students in
a university special bus over the occupying of seats reserved for

87
ladies. These students, Hari Chand claimed, beat him up and took
him to the college hostel where he was illegally confined for a number
of hours. On a subsequent date, when he had gone to the college to
visit his father, who was a reader there in the Department of Botany,
he was apprehended by the students and implicated in a false case.
The then president of the St Stephen’s Students’ Union Society, Rajit
Punhani, said: ‘The incident [the lawyers’ response to their colleague’s
arrest] erodes the confidence of the students in doing what the law
requires them to do.’ The metropolitan magistrate held that there
was no prima facie case against the accused and therefore the case
should be immediately dropped by the police. He recorded his views
as follows: ‘There’s hardly any material placed on record which
should justify further detention of the accused or his trial. Nobody
has actually seen the accused taking out money and also no recovery
was effected. Hence, prosecution and trial will serve no purpose ...’
(signed Pradeep Chaddha, 16 January 1988). What interest the
police had in pursuing the case was, however, not a matter he would
care to look into. Over the days the strike gathered momentum and,
on 21 January, the lawyers formed a protest procession and marched,
shouting slogans, to the office of the DCP (North), namely, Kiran
Bedi. The protest marchers straightaway forced entry into her office
and tried to get at Kiran. She was at that time in a meeting with all
her district gazetted officers, reviewing the preparation for the
forthcoming 26 January parade. All of them, sensing the intrusion,
sprang to their feet, and immediately came between the lawyers
and their DCP and succeeded in physically pushing them out. While
doing so, they bolted Kiran in, protecting her from being attacked.
The additional DCP, M. S. Sandhu, being the seniormost on the
spot, took charge. Other officers with Sandhu included Prabhat Singh,
assistant commissioner of police (ACP), D. L. Kashyap, Vinay
Chaudhury, Ram Kumar and S. B. S. Tyagi.
The lawyers, for hours, remained menacing and kept on shouting
filthy slogans. Sandhu continued to tolerate them, avoiding a
confrontation with them as far as possible. But while he could tolerate
the lawyers, some of his juniors could not. When a section of lawyers
started to pull out the name plates and berets of some constables,
the latter hit back, and all hell was let loose. Some lawyers were
injured, as also some policemen. Photographers’ cameras were
THE LAWYERS STRIKE – AT KIRAN

88 I DARE!
smashed. It was all very wild. But the lawyers’ biggest grouse was
that they could not do to Kiran what they had come for. Now they
wanted nothing short of her ‘head’. They went on an indefinite strike
and demanded her suspension. They alleged that Kiran had ordered
a lathicharge on them and made sure that they were injured. They
also wanted compensation for the injuries they had received, while
simultaneously demanding ‘nothing short of Kiran Bedi’s
suspension’. The incident had eyewitnesses at different stages of
the rapidly changing scene. Therefore, the next day’s newspapers
published the versions of all sides: the injuries, the smashing of
cameras, the filthy slogans and what have you!
It was clearly evident from published accounts in the
newspapers that the lawyers wanted to humiliate the gender in the
service and perhaps send out a larger message. Otherwise, how
does one explain the language and aggression displayed? After all,
if it was only a matter of the accountability of a senior officer,
then, by the same token, the commissioner of police could also
have been gheraoed and harassed. There perhaps was something
about Kiran’s way of functioning that had raised the hackles of
the lawyers. Up to 7 February 1988, they did not have anything
substantial against her but somehow she had to be suspended and
dismissed. This was effectively achieved by playing up the
handcuffing incident to create the bogey of ‘police high-
handedness’.
In retrospect, one wonders whether the crime prevention
activities undertaken by Kiran under the commissionerate
powers entrusted to her, wherein she was holding her own courts
and consolidating effective crime prevention through
externment proceedings, did not provide the real reason for the
lawyers’ ire. After all, she seemed to have effectively curbed
the role of some of the lawyers and typists as middlemen whose
primary source of income was the seeking of bail for petty
criminals involved in picking pockets, stealing from their own
homes or those of others and delving in crimes related to their
drug habits. One really wonders.
***

89
On 22 January 1988, the lieutenant governor of Delhi, H. L. Kapur,
ordered a magisterial enquiry into the entire incident. The enquiry
report was to be submitted within a week.
The lawyers, however, would have nothing to do with this
enquiry and continued to insist that they would not compromise on
anything short of the dismissal of Kiran Bedi.
By effectively mobilizing the system of associations and
unions that are so prevalent in the country, the Delhi lawyers
succeeded in persuading five lakh of their colleagues all over India
to join their strike. A strike of this dimension constituted a record
in the history of the legal profession. Yet, the amazing fact about
this bushfire strike was that it was not engendered by any noble
principle or constitutional crisis but was based on a one-point
programme, i.e., the dismissal of Kiran Bedi from service. And
that too on the issue of the handcuffing of a person who kept
changing his name and address and was caught red-handed by
the students and handed over to a police officer for legal action.
The main difference was that this person happened to be a lawyer
too!
On 4 February 1988, the magistrate in charge of the enquiry
submitted his report. He maintained that the sequence of events
led him to clearly believe that Rajesh Agnihotri was definitely
involved in the crime of theft and that he was rightly arrested
by the police of the Roshanara Police Station. However, he held
the view that Rajesh being handcuffed was not warranted.
The lawyers immediately demanded that the concerned
subinspector be suspended and disciplinary action taken against him
for handcuffing the accused!
***
Meanwhile, a judicial enquiry had been instituted into the 21 January
incident of the lathicharge on the lawyers outside the office of the
DCP (N). The enquiry was to be conducted by a retired judge of
the Delhi High Court, Justice P. N. Khanna. He was instructed to
submit an interim report within a week and the final report within a
month. But this wasn’t enough for the lawyers. They wanted an

90 I DARE!
enquiry to be conducted only by a sitting judge of the Delhi High
Court. And eventually they had their way.
On 7 February, the lawyers of the Supreme Court called off
their strike. The lawyers of the lower courts, however, were in no
mood to compromise on their one-point stand, i.e., the dismissal of
Kiran Bedi, before they would take any further action on the issue.
Fifteen members of the Action Committee set up by the lawyers
of the Tees Hazari courts started a relay hunger strike to get their
demand fulfilled.
The courts thus remained paralysed. On 17 February, the Tees
Hazari courts complex witnessed an unprecedented riot. People from
distant places such as Samaypur and Badli (on the outskirts of Delhi)
and also from adjoining areas came in trucks and tempos to protest
against what they considered to be an unlawful and baseless strike.
They raised slogans against the striking lawyers. The lawyers formed
an opposition group immediately and slanging matches and
brickbatting became the order of the day. In the ensuing melee
several persons (belonging to both groups) as well as bystanders
were injured. The police had to intervene to separate the groups and
restore order. A number of arrests were made, the most prominent
being that of a Delhi municipal councillor, Rajesh Yadav.
Such a situation naturally stoked the fire of the lawyers’ agitation.
They were quick to scream themselves hoarse that Kiran Bedi had
engineered the whole scenario and declared that they would stop
short of nothing but her ‘blood’!
The interesting thing about the whole episode was that the
lawyers themselves were divided about the course of events. Almost
all the senior lawyers of the Supreme Court as well as the Delhi
High Court were strongly opposed to the strike, whereas the junior
lawyers were adamant that they would not rest till Kiran Bedi was
dismissed. The senior lawyers insisted that a secret ballot be held to
determine the true opinion of the majority regarding the continuation
of the strike. Under vehement protests and demonstrations such a
secret ballot was held in the premises of the Supreme Court Bar
Association Library. Govinda Mukhoty, the president of the Delhi
Bar Association Action Committee, assured one and all that
there would be no force used during the balloting and that if
there was, then, he would resign from his post. Ballot boxes,

91
however, were hijacked. The Supreme Court Bar Association
president, M. C. Bhandare, condemned this hijacking and declared
it to be highly undemocratic and an act of cowardice. ‘Those who
fight for human rights should see to it that others’ right to vote should
not be frustrated. The silent majority of the Supreme Court has
decided to lift the siege from 7 March,’ he declared.
If telling evidence of hijacking were needed, the photographs
published in some newspapers showed a group of lawyers carrying
away ballot boxes from the Supreme Court premises. Prominent
among them were the president of the New Delhi Bar Association,
Thakur Onkar Singh, and Rajesh Wadhwa, a member of the New
Delhi Bar Association. The two, however, denied that the pictures
were theirs but admitted that they did have a remarkable resemblance.
Govinda Mukhoty stated that there was 90 per cent evidence of his
‘boys’ having been involved in the ballot-box hijacking and in the
general disruption caused to the voting process but maintained that
as there was still a margin of 10 per cent proof of certainty, he
would not resign. Later, however, he changed his stance and said he
would resign. This was enough to drive the chairman of the Delhi
Bar Association, Daljit Tandon, to tears and declare that once again
money power and adverse publicity were out to stifle their efforts.
In another significant development, a lawyers’ delegation
approached Union Home Minister Buta Singh and demanded the
suspension of Kiran Bedi. The home minister rejected their appeal
and requested them to call off their stir pending the report of the
high-powered commission that was looking into the matter. While
the striking lawyers then demonstrated against the home minister,
women’s rights activists, women’s groups and university students
held a massive rally to support Buta Singh’s statement.
While the lawyers in Delhi continued their agitation, several
high courts across the country condemned it and declared it to be
illegal. They maintained that such gross dereliction of duty should
be severely punished. They declared that lawyers had made it a habit
of striking work on the flimsiest of pretexts without any
responsibility towards their commitments, leading to the harassment
of the people at large. Lawyers’ strikes had been sparked off by
inane things like a judge objecting to not being addressed as ‘Your
Honour’; cases being dismissed because the pleader came in late;

92 I DARE!
and political demands for the formation of a separate Telangana
state (by bifurcating Andhra Pradesh).
Meanwhile, the office of the administrator of Delhi conceded
to the demands of the lawyers and issued orders countermanding
the enquiry by Justice Khanna. It felt that a fresh commission should
be constituted to look into the entire matter from its genesis
onwards. As a result, a two-bench commission, comprising Justice
N. N. Goswami and Justice D. P. Wadhwa, was set up.
The Goswami–Wadhwa Commission was asked to give an
interim report within a specified time. It did. It held Kiran Bedi
guilty on all possible counts. Soon after that Kiran was transferred
to the Central Reserve Police Force, an order to be reversed within
24 hours by the personal intervention of none other than Prime
Minister Rajiv Gandhi. He had called her for a personal meeting in
which he suggested that her talents would be better utilized in the
interdiction of drug trafficking (see also Chapter 9).
But little did the prime minister or Kiran realize what a
marathon legal battle lay ahead. Kiran used to start the day in the
lawyer’s chamber, if she was lucky to have a lawyer, then go to the
courts for her hearings that had assumed the shape of a public
trial, then rush to attend office in the Narcotics Control Bureau
and then return to the lawyer’s chamber to prepare for the next
day’s hearings or prepare herself with her colleagues, namely,
M. S. Sandhu, S. B. S. Tyagi, Vinay Chaudhury, Prabhat Singh,
Jinder Singh and others, all serving officers of the Delhi Police.
There were days in which Kiran had to be physically present in
three courts, that is, before the commission of inquiry, the Delhi
High Court and the Supreme Court. She was appearing in person,
defending herself, while the seniormost of the counsel, K. K.
Venugopal, would be pitted against her.
Kiran lived by the hour then, as she says: morning, afternoon,
evening and night. Her day, she adds, was divided into four major
portions when scenes changed and so did the priorities and strategies.
The slogan of a section of the lawyers was a ‘fight to the finish! We
must get Kiran Bedi’s scalp’. This was a battle where one woman
was visibly pitted against a large organized union of lawyers. Both
sides had their grievances, without a doubt but, who was the accused
and who the accuser? Kiran for the first time became a lawyer who

93
appeared for herself and filed a petition before the apex court. She
recalls the help given to her by a friend, Anil Bal. He introduced her
to a senior advocate, Gopal Subramaniam, who gave all possible
legal guidance and staff assistance, which enabled her to prepare
her petitions and appear before the Supreme Court in person. The
rulings given by the Supreme Court in her case are already part of
legal history and are quoted as landmark judgements delivered
by Mr Justice E. S. Venkataramiah, Mr Justice M. M. Dutt and
Mr Justice N. D. Ojha. Kiran had gone to the highest court,
questioning her status of accused before the commission of inquiry
and therefore seeking the right to defend herself. When the
commission of inquiry had asked her to take the witness box to be
examined, she took the stand and said, ‘I do not wish to make a
statement, your lordship. I beg leave to state that.’ The judges did
not say anything for some time and only then did Justice Wadhwa
suggest that she take a chair while he consulted his colleague. ‘I am
used to standing for long periods,’ answered Kiran.
‘Are you advising your client not to take oath?’ Justice Wadhwa
asked G. Ramaswamy (Kiran’s counsel). ‘She can be prosecuted for
contempt of court,’ he was told.
‘I am only asking that my client be given an opportunity to
defend herself, your honour,’ said her counsel. ‘You cannot force
her to take that opportunity without examining the witnesses first.’
Ramaswamy then asked the judges to overrule his plea if they
so thought fit so that ‘we can move the higher courts’.
Here is what appeared then in the press, which indicates the
situation in the courtroom.
KIRAN BEDI REFUSES TO TAKE OATH
Mrs Kiran Bedi refused to take oath before Justices Wadhwa
and Goswami on Thursday [19 May 1988]. She was asked
to show cause by Friday why she should not be prosecuted
for contempt of court.
Subinspector Jinder Singh, who was to have been cross-
examined before the panel on Thursday along with Mrs Bedi,

94 I DARE!
did not turn up in the court. He was issued non-bailable
warrants to appear before the court on 23 May.
Mrs Bedi’s counsel told the two-judge panel that he
would move higher courts against their ruling. The Tis
Hazari Bar Association, meanwhile, filed petitions before
the High Court and the Supreme Court to prevent any ex-
parte stay of the proceedings.
Mrs Bedi’s refusal to take oath came after her counsel had
argued that, virtually being an accused before the committee,
she was not bound to take oath. The judges, however, ordered
that she be cross-examined. ‘I beg leave to state that I do not
wish to make any statement,’ Mrs Bedi said. The courtroom
erupted with cries of ‘contempt’. The show-cause notice was
later served on Mrs Bedi as the court adjourned.
Simultaneously, the court ordered that Mr Ved Marwah,
former police chief, and Mr M. S. Sandhu, ex-additional
DCP, be present on Friday for cross-examination.
Dozens of lawyers had crammed the courtroom on
Thursday to witness Mrs Bedi’s testimony. Five minutes
after the judges had taken their seats, there was a buzz of
excitement. Mr G. Ramaswami, additional solicitor-general,
walked in to defend the police department. His appearance
on Monday had generated a spate of objections from the
bar associations.
Mr Ramaswami first made his own position in the
matter clear. He said he was duty-bound to accept the brief
since the Government had ordered him to do so. ‘The
lawyers did not discuss any of their confidential case strategy
with me. My conscience is clear,’ Mr Ramaswami said.
Mr Ramaswami then addressed himself to the case.
He said the present inquiry was not just for fact-finding but
for probing specific charges against specific individuals. ‘Mrs
Bedi is almost the accused before this committee,’ he said.
Mr Ramaswami said that if a person refused to testify
before the committee when he was called as an ordinary
witness, he could be penalised. But, he said, a virtual accused
could not be compelled to depose.

95
Mr Ramaswami cited the case of Mrs Indira Gandhi
who had refused to depose before the [J.C.] Shah
Commission under similar circumstances. ‘The high court
upheld her right to stay away from the witness box,’ he said.
‘Are you saying Mrs Bedi will not take oath?’ asked
Justice Wadhwa. Mr Ramaswami said she would appear
later, after he had had a chance to cross-examine those who
had deposed against her.
The judges ruled there was a fundamental difference
between Mrs Gandhi’s case and Mrs Bedi’s case. Mrs
Gandhi had not filed an affidavit before the commission
while Mrs Bedi had done so: ‘She is only being cross-
examined on her own affidavit,’ said Justice Goswami.
The judges asked SI Jinder Singh to take the box. The
subinspector was not present. Non-bailable warrants were
issued for him to appear on 23 May.
Mrs Bedi was then called to the box. ‘Mrs Bedi, have
you filed an affidavit?’ asked Justice Goswami. Even as she
was replying, counsel for bar associations, Bawa Gurcharan
Singh, asked her to take oath.
The reader asked Mrs Bedi to repeat the oath after him.
‘I do not wish to make a statement, your lordship. I beg
leave to state that,’ Mrs Bedi said.
‘Contempt, contempt,’ shouted the lawyers. ‘She
cannot be compelled to take oath,’ said Mr Ramaswami.
Thejudgesdidnotsayanythingforsometime.‘Takeachair,’
Justice Wadhwa told Mrs Bedi as he consulted his colleague. ‘I
am used to standing for long periods,’ Mrs Bedi told him.
‘Are you advising your client not to take oath?’ Justice
Wadhwa asked Mr Ramaswami. ‘She can be prosecuted
for contempt of court’.
Mr Ramaswami told the judges that he only wished to
read out an extract from the judgement in the Indira Gandhi
case to them. ‘After that, your lordships, I will advise her to
take oath if you overrule my contention,’ he said.
The judgement was read out. Mr Ramaswami said the
accused was only being given an opportunity to defend

96 I DARE!
herself. ‘You can’t force her to take that opportunity without
letting us examine their witnesses,’ he said. When Justice
Wadhwa mentioned the affidavit, Mr Ramaswami said: ‘If
you are going to get technical, I will be super-technical.’
Mrs Bedi, at this stage, asked if she could state on oath
that she would not make any statement. ‘That would be
tantamount to contempt,’ Justice Wadhwa said.
Mr Ramaswami asked him to overrule his plea ‘so that
we can move higher courts.’ ‘What further overruling do
you want,’ Justice Wadhwa said, and served notice on Mrs
Bedi to show cause why she should not be hauled up for
contempt of court.
(Indian Express, 20 May 1988)
It was on this issue that Kiran went on special leave petition
before the Supreme Court vacation judge on three counts:
(1) She wanted to know what her status was before the commission
of inquiry: was it that of an accused or not?
(2) If she was an accused then did she have the right to defend
herself and examine the witnesses before she herself
could be cross-examined to know the allegations against
her?
(3) She requested that the prosecution that had been
launched against her in the court of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate R. L. Chugh be quashed.
Mr Justice K. N. Singh (the vacation judge), before whom her
petition was presented, gave relief to her on all counts. In a packed
courtroom, the vacation judge also directed the Goswami–Wadhwa
Commission to reconsider its decision regarding the order in which
the police and the Delhi Bar Association witnesses would be
examined.
Later, however, the same matter came before the regular bench
comprising Justice E. S. Venkataramiah, Justice M. M. Dutt and
Justice N. D. Ojha. They made several observations of great

97
consequence, which led to strong reactions. They ruled that since
Kiran Bedi was the sole object of attack by the Bar Association
before the commission of inquiry, she was the ‘fittest person to come
under Section 8 (B) of the Commission of Inquiry Act’. In other
words, she should get the rights and privileges of an accused along
with its responsibilities. They also quashed the prosecution’s
contempt of court proceedings in which she was already on bail,
based on a complaint of the commission. The apex court also
categorically stated that Kiran Bedi was discriminated against.
Further, since her prosecution was not based on the order of law, the
prosecution against her should also go, the same court declared.
Various national dailies recorded and reported the event, which was
history in itself.
PROTECTION UNDER SECTION 8B
KIRAN BEDI WAS ‘DISCRIMINATED’
Justice E. S. Venkataramiah, the presiding judge of the
bench hearing the Kiran Bedi case, observed on Thursday
[28 July 1988] that the commission’s order naming only
four persons entitled to the protection under Section 8B
of the Commission of Inquiry Act was discriminatory
on the face of it as Ms Bedi, former DCP (north), was
left out.
‘Either the order must go or they must write a fresh
order,’ the judge explained. If the commission judges had
given reasons for this discrimination this appeal would not
have come to the Supreme Court, he observed.
Since Ms Bedi is being prosecuted on this point, the
judge doubted the validity of the prosecution also. The court
had earlier stayed her prosecution for not taking oath before
the commission.
Her counsel and Additional Solicitor-General,
Mr G. Ramaswamy, said that she had not refused to take
oath but only maintained that the stage has not come to
put her in the box. Even the commission’s order had stated

98 I DARE!
that Section 8B witnesses would be examined at the end of
the proceedings. Therefore, her prosecution was not proper,
counsel submitted.
Moreover, the lawyers cannot intervene in the
prosecution as they have no locus standi in it. It is entirely
between the court and the accused, he argued.
Justice Venkataramiah asked counsel to read out the
order of the commission which purportedly discriminates
against Ms Bedi. He then observed that the parties were
not dealt with even-handedly. When he indicated that the
prosecution is liable to be set aside, Mr K. K. Venugopal,
counsel for the lawyers, said that the order should not be
set aside on a ‘technical’ ground. The judge insisted that it
was ‘substantial’ ground.
Most of the day on Thursday was taken by
Mr Ramaswamy summing up his arguments of the last
two weeks, and reading out well-known judgements on the
procedures of commissions of inquiry.
Justice Venkataramiah strengthened his arguments
occasionally by quoting judgements. Reading out the judges’
case of 1980, he remarked that the loss of reputation is
worse than death for anyone. The judge also stressed that
the procedures followed by tribunals must be fair and
reasonable under Article 21 of the Constitution. Agreeing
with Mr Ramaswamy that the lawyers must lead evidence
first, the judge said that the principle of burden of proof
must be followed.
The hearing will resume on Friday. The bench hearing
the appeal of Ms Bedi challenging the procedures adopted
by the Goswami–Wadhwa Committee inquiring into the
lawyers’ strike in Delhi also consists of Justice M. M. Dutt
and Justice N. D. Ojha.
(Indian Express, 29 July 1988)

I dare -Written by Dr. Kiran Bedi

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to I dare -Written by Dr. Kiran Bedi

Similar to I dare -Written by Dr. Kiran Bedi (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

I dare -Written by Dr. Kiran Bedi