The legal community’s decision to retain an obsolete laws, for reasons known only to them

In the realm of law, a subset of legal professionals maintain that laws should be crafted to address issues that affect a significant portion of society, rather than those faced by a relatively small or insignificant number of individuals. Within this group, feminist attorneys are particularly vocal with regard to laws surrounding gender relations and have gained prominence in recent times. Another viewpoint is that laws which cause more harm than good should be eliminated. Conversely, laws that only benefit a limited number of litigants ought to be reevaluated or altered to benefit a larger segment of the population. The latter argument appears to be more logical than the former, which seems arbitrary in nature.

In the context of the legal profession, there are certain feminist lawyers who tend to view a significant proportion of men as potential criminals, exhibiting a highly combative demeanor in their interactions and generally unwilling to compromise. One such lawyer has ascended to a high-ranking position within the government through a lengthy career and has a receptive audience whenever she speaks on matters of concern to her. Interestingly, one of her clients – a former intern turned lawyer – recently referred to her as the Additional Solicitor General of India in a written communication. This is an unusual designation, as it is reserved for government officials and not a constitutional post. While this could be seen as an attempt at self-aggrandizement, it is possible that the lawyer in question did not want to be publicly embarrassed by her client, who had recently caused controversy by making purported disclosures and using sarcastic language in reference to a retired senior legal official. Nevertheless, it is amusing to observe the ironic situation of this particular legal authority, who is seemingly being humbled by her own client.

In the realm of law, it is worth noting that an internship undergone by a member of one gender could potentially lead to the internment of their advisor or senior if that individual happens to be of the opposite gender, under the evolving legal framework in our country. Returning to the topic of laws related to atrocities affecting a small number of individuals, there was controversy surrounding the proposed gender-neutral law against acid attacks, with several prominent feminist lawyers arguing that such attacks only happen to women, and men do not require legal protection. Fortunately, the new law was ultimately made equal for both genders. This suggests that there are individuals in positions of authority who share the belief that gender laws are too significant to be solely determined by feminist lawyers. Ultimately, the law – like the economy – should not be controlled solely by lawyers or economists, respectively, as it is too important for such a narrow perspective.

In the Indian legal system, lawyers have an immense influence in all branches of government, leading to a situation where the country has become a republic of lawyers, by lawyers, and for lawyers. Unfair laws and prolonged litigation serve as a source of benefit for lawyers across the nation. This legal supremacy and interference in lawmaking need to be checked. Similarly, it should be acknowledged that feminists do not represent the entire female population, as they come from a diverse range of backgrounds and perspectives.

For instance, when it comes to divorce-related litigation in family courts, the majority of litigants aim to end their marriage as quickly as possible, due to the ineffectiveness of the Hindu Marriage Act in resolving disputes within a reasonable timeframe. Only a small percentage of litigants continue to fight cases for years. The law’s shortcomings, coupled with endemic judicial delay in India, exacerbate the suffering of those caught in lengthy litigation. As a result, intelligent individuals choose to end their disputes and move on with their lives.

In the realm of law, some individuals are motivated by the unrealistic idea of a prolonged struggle for justice, pushing them to endure the tedious process of navigating family courts and higher judicial authorities. Unfortunately, this group ultimately ends up being exploited and deceived by those who espouse such ideals. Admittedly, there are a small number of litigants who fall under the second category and relish the idea of prolonging their court battles, finding pleasure in watching their marriages on paper undergo years of legal wrangling while their partners bear the brunt of the suffering.

In the context of law, the Hindu Marriage Act is inflicting suffering upon the majority of litigants, with only a small minority gaining any kind of twisted satisfaction from its unyielding provisions. This leads us to reconsider the idea presented in the first paragraph (within parentheses) and ask whether it resonates with those caught up in litigation. Many outdated statutes have been removed in the past due to their negative impact on society and its citizens, and perhaps it is time to do the same with the oppressive aspects of the Hindu Marriage Act.

However, lawyers are likely to resist any attempts at change as each additional month spent in litigation only increases the desperation of litigants. Lawyers know that desperate people are willing to pay more for their services than those in a more stable state of mind. This brings us to the issue of the extended waiting periods within the Act.