MemCast

Top Criminal Cases, Corruption In Police, Politician & Lawyer - Tanveer Ahmed Mir |F0229 Raj Shamani

Exploring systemic corruption in India's legal system, witness protection failures, and the ethical duties of lawyers

2h 53m·Guest Tanveer Ahmed Mir·Host Raj Shamani·
Ddeepu.kalidindi🏛️Economics🎬Media & Culture🌍Geopolitics· added 4 days ago

constitutional-duty-of-defense-lawyers

1 / 11

Defense lawyers in India are constitutionally mandated to represent clients regardless of guilt, ensuring fair trials and upholding the justice system's integrity. This duty transcends personal morality and is foundational to democratic justice.

#legal-ethics2#constitutional-ai2#criminal-defense2
Defense lawyers are constitutionally obligated to defend clients regardless of guilt to uphold the justice system's integrity
  • The Indian Constitution mandates that every accused has the right to a defense, regardless of perceived guilt. Lawyers act as officers of the court, ensuring fair trials by challenging prosecution evidence and procedures. Without defense lawyers, the system would default to convictions without scrutiny, violating due process. Example: In the 26/11 Mumbai attacks case, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran defended Kasab despite public outrage, emphasizing that constitutional rights apply even to terrorists. This role prevents arbitrary convictions and maintains public trust in judicial fairness. The white band worn by lawyers symbolizes this duty, not personal morality but systemic responsibility.
Quote
00:00:00
“कभी आपने किसी को डिफेंड किया है जो आपको पता है कि वह गिल्टी है हां बहुत बार मैं किसी को डिफेंड करने से ही भाग जाऊं तो फिर मैं वो बैंड पहनने के लायक नहीं हूं” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
00:03:12
“मेरी जो डिफेंस की कैपेबिलिटी है या जो मेरे ऊपर रिस्पांसिबिलिटी है वो डिफेंड करने के लिए जरूरी है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Society's trust in justice depends on lawyers defending even the most heinous criminals
  • The justice system requires adversarial proceedings where both prosecution and defense present their cases. If lawyers refused to defend 'guilty' clients, innocent people could be wrongfully convicted due to lack of scrutiny. Example: In the Indira Gandhi murder case, Raju Ramachandran defended the accused, ensuring a fair trial despite public sentiment. Without this, the system would collapse into mob justice, eroding constitutional principles. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the right to defense is fundamental, even for terrorists or murderers. This duty is non-negotiable; lawyers must uphold the law, not personal morality.
Quote
00:09:20
“सुप्रीम कोर्ट के जजों ने एक बड़े जो है ऊंचे लेवल के एक सीनियर एडवोकेट को बोला जिनका नाम है मिस्टर राजू रामचंद्रन सीनियर एडवोकेट उनको बोला कि आप इसको डिफेंड करेंगे वो तो जो है वीडियो के ऊपर गोलियां मार रहा था तो क्यों डिफेंड करेंगे” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
00:09:39
“जो हमारा कानून है जो हमारा संविधान है उसके अंदर जो है राइट टू डिफेंड जो है द ऑब्लिगेशन टू डिफेंड यह जो है बड़े हाई लेवल पे है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Lawyers' ethical duty transcends personal morality and serves systemic fairness
  • The white band worn by lawyers symbolizes a constitutional obligation, not personal morality. Lawyers must prioritize procedural justice over individual guilt perceptions. Example: In the Priya Darshini murder case, Tanveer Mir testified against a powerful suspect despite threats, emphasizing that his duty was to the court, not to the victim's family. This ensures that evidence is scrutinized objectively, preventing wrongful convictions. Without this neutrality, the justice system would become a tool for political or social vendettas. The Constitution requires lawyers to be 'instruments of society' for fairness, not moral arbiters.
Quote
00:11:11
“बैंड पहनता है ये केवल एक कागज जो है कपड़े का स्टार्च क्लॉथ नहीं है ये बैंड आप पे एक फंडामेंटल रिस्पांसिबिलिटी देता है दैट यू आर एन ऑफिसर ऑफ द कोर्ट” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
00:17:23
“लॉयर का पूरा धर्म ईमान है उसको जो बैंड पहनाया तो उसके गले में एक ऐसा घंटा बांध लिया के साब आज जो है जो वाई द लॉयरिंग कॉल्ड एस नोबल प्रोफेशन बिकॉज यू आर एन ऑफिसर ऑफ द कोर्ट” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir

witness-protection-system-failures

2 / 11

India lacks statutory witness protection frameworks, leading to intimidation, evidence tampering, and collapsed cases. Systemic failures enable powerful actors to manipulate justice through threats and corruption.

#corruption3#legal-procedures2
India lacks a statutory witness protection framework, leading to witness intimidation and case collapse
  • India has no dedicated law for witness protection, unlike countries like the US with the Witness Security Program. In the Asaram Bapu case, three witnesses were murdered, five injured, and one missing, highlighting systemic failures. Police often fail to protect witnesses, as seen in the Priya Darshini case where Tanveer Mir faced threats despite CBIs involvement. Courts have issued directives (e.g., Mahendra Chawla case) for secret locations and security, but implementation is inconsistent. Without legal backing, witnesses fear retaliation, leading to false testimonies or withdrawal, undermining justice. The Supreme Court has repeatedly criticized the lack of protection, but political will to enact laws remains absent.
Quote
00:32:22
“हमारे मुल्क में विटनेस प्रोटेक्शन पे अभी भी हम सबसे ज्यादा कमजोर हैं क्योंकि उस परे कोई कानून भी नहीं” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
00:58:13
“आसाराम का जो केस है उसमें भारत सरकार ने तो आज तक विटनेस प्रोटेक्शन रेजीम पर कोई कदम नहीं उठाए ना कोई कानून बनाया नए कानून में भी इसका कोई खुलासा नहीं” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Witness intimidation is systemic, often orchestrated by powerful individuals through police and political connections
  • Powerful figures influence police to intimidate witnesses, as seen in the Unnao rape case where the victim's family faced threats. In the Sohrabuddin encounter case, witnesses turned hostile due to pressure, leading to acquittals. Police officers themselves may be compromised, as highlighted by an IPS officer's public statement: 'मैं उस कुत्ते की तरह हूं जिसका पटा पॉलिटिशियन के हाथ में है'. This creates a cycle where witnesses fear for their lives, leading to false testimonies or disappearance. The absence of legal safeguards means even high-profile cases collapse due to witness tampering. The system prioritizes political expediency over justice, making witness protection a luxury rather than a right.
Quote
00:00:22
“आईपीएस ऑफिसर ने पब्लिक प्लेटफॉर्म पे बात करी कि साहब मैं आईपीएस ऑफिसर तो हूं लेकिन मैं उस कुत्ते की तरह हूं जिसका पटा पॉलिटिशियन के हाथ में है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
01:31:24
“इन्वेस्टिगेटिंग एजेंसीज इंडिया में बहुत इफ बहुत ही इलस है आज भी अभी भी और अब ज्यादा ज्यादा ज्यादा अब जो इन्वेस्टिगेटिंग एजेंसीज में करप्शन जो है वह घटने के बदले में बढ़ गई क्योंकि सबको पता है कि यह इनफ्लुएंशल पार्टी तो इससे मिल सकता है तो बिल्कुल मिल सकता” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Witness protection measures are often symbolic, with inadequate security and political interference
  • Despite Supreme Court directives, witness security is often superficial. In the Unnao rape case, security was provided but remained ineffective against political threats. CBI officers like Mr. Tripathi implemented strong protection protocols, but this is the exception, not the rule. Police often lack resources or willingness to protect witnesses, as seen in the Thalium poisoning case where police initially refused to register the complaint. The absence of dedicated infrastructure means even 'protected' witnesses face retaliation. Courts issue orders for secret locations and armed guards, but implementation depends on political will, leading to inconsistent application.
Quote
02:13:07
“उन्नाव रेप केस में जो आईओ मिस्टर त्रिपाठी थे मुझे उनका काम बड़ा जेनन लगा उन्होंने क्या करा कि जितनी भी एविडेंस उनके हाथ लगी सारी अदालत के रिकॉर्ड पर फेंक दी” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
01:05:13
“अगर वहां पे कोर्ट और इन्वेस्टिगेटिंग ऑफिसर सीबीआई के जी अगर वो सही टाइम पर सही टाइप का प्रोटेक्शन नहीं देते तो आज वो बाहर हो सकते थे नहीं” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir

police-corruption-and-systemic-issues

3 / 11

Police corruption in India is deeply institutionalized, with officers acting as extensions of political power rather than independent law enforcers. This undermines evidence collection, witness protection, and public trust.

#institutional-flow4#corruption3#law-enforcement2
Police corruption is systemic, with officers often acting as extensions of political power rather than independent enforcers of law
  • Police officers are frequently controlled by politicians, as evidenced by an IPS officer's public admission about being a 'kutta' with a leash in politicians' hands. In the Delhi Excise Scam, police investigations were influenced by political pressure, leading to selective arrests and evidence tampering. Evidence is often fabricated or suppressed; for example, in the Thalium poisoning case, police initially ignored the case until pressured by doctors. The lack of accountability allows police to act arbitrarily, with no legal consequences for misconduct. This undermines public trust and enables powerful individuals to evade justice through influence. The system prioritizes political loyalty over professional integrity, making police a tool for oppression rather than protection.
Quote
00:00:22
“आईपीएस ऑफिसर ने पब्लिक प्लेटफॉर्म पे बात करी कि साहब मैं आईपीएस ऑफिसर तो हूं लेकिन मैं उस कुत्ते की तरह हूं जिसका पटा पॉलिटिशियन के हाथ में है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
00:01:21
“पुलिस के लिए कोई दीनो ईमान नहीं है आप कभी किसी स्ट्रांग एथिकल पुलिस वाले से नहीं मिले” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Police stations lack transparency due to absence of CCTV coverage, enabling torture and evidence tampering
  • Despite Supreme Court directives (e.g., Veerendra Sanjeevi case), many police stations remain without CCTV, allowing abuse of power. In the Thalium poisoning case, police initially refused to register the complaint until pressured, and later attempted to extort money from the victim's family. Without surveillance, officers can coerce confessions, alter evidence, or fabricate cases without oversight. This lack of accountability perpetuates corruption and erodes public trust in law enforcement. The Supreme Court has mandated CCTV in all police stations to ensure transparency, but implementation is inconsistent. The absence of such measures allows police to operate with impunity, especially in high-profile cases where political interference is common.
Quote
01:43:04
“सुप्रीम कोर्ट की जजमेंट है वीरेंद्र सैनी करके उसमें उन्होंने कहा है कि भाई थाने में जो भी होगा जैसे भी होगा तो आपने एक ऑर्डर लिए लिखा है कि एवरी पुलिस स्टेशन मस्ट बी अंडर टोटल सीसीटीवी कवरेज” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
00:01:17
“जनमन केस पुलिस दर्ज करने के लिए तैयार ही नहीं पुलिस के लिए कोई दीनो ईमान नहीं है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Police often fabricate or suppress evidence to serve political interests
  • Investigating agencies routinely manipulate evidence to fit predetermined conclusions. Example: In the Delhi Excise Scam, the CBI and ED were accused of selectively targeting political opponents while ignoring evidence that could exonerate them. In the Jessica Lal case, ballistic evidence was tampered with, and witnesses turned hostile due to police coercion. The Supreme Court has noted that investigations often start with 'conclusions first, evidence later' approach. This undermines the credibility of law enforcement and leads to wrongful convictions. Without independent oversight, police act as political tools rather than impartial investigators, eroding public trust in the justice system.
Quote
01:30:26
“जसिका लाल केस में जो गई बैलेस्टिक ने गोली चेंज कर ली” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:37:20
“कंक्लूजन पहले तय होता है और उसके इर्दगिर्द एविडेंस बनाई जाती है आपने पहले ही तय कर दिया कि आपने कंक्लूजन लास्ट में ड्र करना था आपने पहले कंक्लूजन तय कर लिया” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir

judicial-system-inefficiencies

5 / 11

India's judicial system suffers from severe understaffing, case backlogs, and procedural delays that deny timely justice. Structural flaws prevent efficient case disposal and erode public trust.

#legal-reform5#court-infrastructure3
India's judicial system suffers from severe understaffing, with only 21 judges per million citizens compared to 270 in the US
  • India has a judge-to-citizen ratio of 21:1,000,000, far below global standards (270 in US, 300 in China). This leads to massive case backlogs, with trials lasting decades; for example, money laundering cases often take 20+ years. Courts are overwhelmed, with judges handling 20+ cases daily, causing adjournments and delays. The lack of infrastructure funding exacerbates the problem, with insufficient courtrooms and staff. This inefficiency denies timely justice, as accused remain in jail for years without trial. The Supreme Court has repeatedly highlighted this crisis, but government funding remains inadequate. Without structural reforms, the backlog will continue to undermine public trust in the judiciary.
Quote
02:29:58
“इंडिया में सबसे पुअर रेशो है जजेस टू ऑडियंस जस्टस टू सिटीजन का बिल्कुल 21 जजेस ओवर 1 मिलियन ऑडियंस 1 मिलियन सिटीजंस यस 21 जजेस ओवर 1 मिलियन सिटीजंस” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:30:28
“हमारे यहां प भी पहले जूरी ट्रायल होता था तो जूरी जब इनकॉरपोरेट होती है न्यूयॉर्क में टेक्सस में साउथ कैरोलिना में वो जूरी जो है घर नहीं जा सकती जब तक डिसीजन नहीं देती” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Case backlogs and procedural delays allow guilty parties to evade justice through prolonged legal battles
  • With over 40 million pending cases, trials often stretch for decades, allowing accused to remain free for years. In the Delhi Excise Scam, investigations took years before charges were filed, and trials are still ongoing after 5+ years. The system prioritizes quantity over quality, with judges unable to focus on individual cases. This delays justice for victims and allows powerful individuals to exploit procedural loopholes. The Supreme Court has set deadlines for case disposal (e.g., 35 days for Unnao rape case), but enforcement is inconsistent. Without systemic reforms, the backlog will continue to undermine public trust in the judiciary. The lack of resources means even high-profile cases face years of delays, denying timely justice.
Quote
02:30:45
“हमारे यहां इन्वेस्टिगेशन में क्या होता है कि साहब आपने मुकदमा बंद कर दर्ज कर लिया आदमी बंद कर दिया पाच महीने में उसकी जमानत हो गई आपने एक मेन चार्जशीट दे दी फिर आप बोलते हैं कि सर अभी तो हम जो है इन्वेस्टिगेशन कर ही रहे हैं अब खत्म कब हो रहा हमें पता ही नहीं” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:39:40
“ईडी के किसी केस में तो गवाही शुरू हुई नहीं है परसेंटेज वाइज इट्स इन सिंगल डिजिट दैट इज बिकॉज व्ट एम आई टेलिंग यू मैं आपको क्या बता रहा हूं जो ऊपर से ऑर्डर आया ऑर्डर ये आया कि मुकदमा चलाओ आदमी को बंद करो पर मुकदमा मत चलाना” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Inadequate funding for legal infrastructure perpetuates judicial inefficiency
  • The government allocates minimal funds for judicial infrastructure, prioritizing other sectors. India spends less than 0.1% of GDP on justice, compared to 1-2% in developed nations. This results in outdated courtrooms, insufficient staff, and lack of digital tools. For example, many courts still rely on manual record-keeping, slowing down proceedings. The Supreme Court has repeatedly called for increased funding, but political will is lacking. Without modern infrastructure, the system cannot handle its caseload efficiently, leading to decades-long delays. This underfunding reflects a systemic neglect of justice as a public good, undermining the rule of law.
Quote
02:29:46
“हमारा सिस्टम वहां फेल हो गया फेल इसलिए हुआ कि हमारा जो इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर है जो गवर्नमेंट है वह लीगल इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर में लीस्ट फंडिंग देता है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:29:58
“जैसे हमें जज और नहीं चाहिए अदालत और चाहिए इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर बेहतर चाहिए मैं एक स्टेट पढ़ रहा था कि इंडिया में सबसे पुअर रेशो है जजेस टू ऑडियंस जस्टस टू सिटीजन” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir

corporate-vs-criminal-law-earnings

6 / 11

Criminal defense lawyers earn significantly less than corporate lawyers due to inconsistent fee structures and lack of standardized billing models. This affects talent retention and quality of representation.

#fee-revenue2
Criminal defense lawyers earn significantly less than corporate lawyers, with top criminal lawyers making 30-50 crore annually versus 100+ for corporate
  • Corporate lawyers bill based on firm reputation and transaction size, with structured fees (e.g., 1-5% of deal value). Criminal lawyers have no standard fee structure; fees depend on client's ability to pay and case complexity. Top criminal lawyers may earn 30-50 crore/year, but this is inconsistent and case-dependent. Corporate law offers stable, high earnings due to predictable billing models (e.g., hourly rates for M&A). Criminal lawyers often face ethical dilemmas, with fees sometimes tied to political connections rather than merit. The lack of transparency in criminal law fees makes it difficult to compare earnings across the profession. This disparity affects talent retention, as top lawyers often shift to corporate practice for financial stability.
Quote
02:23:06
“कॉर्पोरेट लॉयर्स मेक सम मनी जो मर्जस एक्विजिशन पे काम करते आईबी के साथ जो काम सेट पैरामीटर्स होती है कॉपरेट बिलिंग होती है आली बिलिंग होती है टाइम प बिलिंग पैरामीटर होता है कि जितनी बड़ी फर्म उनकी है जितना बड़ा नाम है जितने अच्छे मर्ज एकशन करें उतने परसेंट पे वो कमाते हैं” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:26:43
“अगर आप बोले कि साहब मैं तो एक बहुत बडे सुप्रीम कोर्ट के लॉयर को रिटेन करूंगा तो शायद आपको उसका रिटेंशन अमाउंट ही 5 करोड़ से अब देना पड़े नहीं तो बात भी ना करे” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Criminal law lacks standardized fee structures, leading to inconsistent earnings and ethical dilemmas
  • Unlike corporate law, criminal defense has no transparent billing model. Fees are negotiated case-by-case, often based on client wealth rather than work quality. Example: In the Delhi Excise Scam, lawyers charged crores for high-profile clients while others worked for minimal fees. This creates disparities where wealthy clients get top-tier representation, while poor defendants receive substandard defense. The absence of standardization also leads to unethical practices, such as charging exorbitant fees for 'guaranteed' outcomes. Top criminal lawyers may earn 30-50 crore/year, but this is volatile and dependent on political connections. This instability drives talent away from criminal law, weakening the profession's quality and integrity.
Quote
02:23:06
“कॉर्पोरेट लॉयर्स मेक सम मनी जो मर्जस एक्विजिशन पे काम करते आईबी के साथ जो काम सेट पैरामीटर्स होती है कॉपरेट बिलिंग होती है आली बिलिंग होती है टाइम प बिलिंग पैरामीटर होता है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:25:36
“यू नो इट्स अप टू यू कभी आपने किसी नोक्स फीस मांगी है एंड सम बडी है सेड नो यस वाला मत बताओ टेल मी एन नोक्स फीस य कोटेड सम लाक जस्ट गिव मी एन एगम मे बी अर्ली स्टेज ऑफ र करियर” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Financial incentives drive top lawyers away from criminal defense to corporate practice
  • The unstable income in criminal law pushes talented lawyers toward corporate practice, where earnings are predictable and high. Example: Many top litigators now focus on M&A or intellectual property cases rather than criminal trials. This creates a talent gap in criminal defense, where only less experienced lawyers handle complex cases. The Supreme Court has noted that inadequate compensation for public defenders leads to poor representation for indigent defendants. Without financial stability, the profession struggles to attract and retain skilled lawyers, weakening the quality of justice. This trend exacerbates systemic inequalities, as wealthy clients can afford top-tier defense while others receive substandard representation.
Quote
02:23:06
“कॉर्पोरेट लॉयर्स मेक सम मनी जो मर्जस एक्विजिशन पे काम करते आईबी के साथ जो काम सेट पैरामीटर्स होती है कॉपरेट बिलिंग होती है आली बिलिंग होती है टाइम प बिलिंग पैरामीटर होता है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:26:43
“अगर आप बोले कि साहब मैं तो एक बहुत बडे सुप्रीम कोर्ट के लॉयर को रिटेन करूंगा तो शायद आपको उसका रिटेंशन अमाउंट ही 5 करोड़ से अब देना पड़े नहीं तो बात भी ना करे” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir

political-influence-on-law-enforcement

7 / 11

Political leaders manipulate law enforcement agencies to target opponents or protect allies, turning police and investigative bodies into tools of partisan power rather than impartial justice.

#corruption3#law-enforcement2
Political leaders control law enforcement agencies, using them as tools for personal or party interests
  • Police and investigative agencies like CBI and ED are often manipulated by political leaders to target opponents or protect allies. In the Delhi Excise Scam, the case was allegedly engineered to target Arvind Kejriwal's government, with witnesses turning hostile due to political pressure. The Supreme Court has noted that investigations are often driven by 'conclusions first, evidence later' approach. Political interference undermines the independence of law enforcement, leading to selective prosecutions. This creates a culture where justice is determined by power rather than facts, eroding public trust. The lack of institutional safeguards allows politicians to influence investigations at all levels, making law enforcement a tool for oppression rather than accountability.
Quote
02:36:45
“आर्ट ऑफ इन्वेस्टिगेशन इज नॉट टू गिव अ लॉलीपॉप इन्वेस्टिगेशन की जिम्मेदारी या जो उसका हुनर है वह एक मुलजिम को लली पॉप देने का नहीं है कि दूसरे मुलजिम के खिलाफ आप बयान दो” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:37:20
“कंक्लूजन पहले तय होता है और उसके इर्दगिर्द एविडेंस बनाई जाती है आपने पहले ही तय कर दिया कि आपने कंक्लूजन लास्ट में ड्र करना था आपने पहले कंक्लूजन तय कर लिया” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Law enforcement agencies prioritize political loyalty over professional integrity
  • Investigating officers are often promoted based on political connections rather than merit. Example: In the Delhi Excise Scam, CBI officers were pressured to target specific individuals while ignoring evidence that could exonerate them. Police departments frequently transfer officers who resist political pressure, creating a culture of compliance. The lack of independent oversight means agencies act as extensions of political power, not impartial investigators. This undermines public trust and leads to selective enforcement of laws. The Supreme Court has repeatedly criticized this trend, but structural reforms are lacking. Without institutional independence, law enforcement becomes a tool for political vendettas rather than justice.
Quote
02:34:15
“जो हमारा सिस्टम चलता है उसमें यह अभी भी एक बहुत बड़ा फैक्टर है हालांकि इससे सोसाइटी जिदो जहद कर रही है ब आज भी होता है रियलिटीज की होता है रियलिटी तो है ही” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
00:00:22
“पुलिस ऑफिसर ने पब्लिक प्लेटफॉर्म पे बात करी कि साहब मैं आईपीएस ऑफिसर तो हूं लेकिन मैं उस कुत्ते की तरह हूं जिसका पटा पॉलिटिशियन के हाथ में है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Political influence leads to selective investigations and wrongful prosecutions
  • Law enforcement agencies often initiate investigations based on political directives rather than evidence. Example: In the Delhi Excise Scam, the CBI filed charges against Arvind Kejriwal's government despite weak evidence, while ignoring similar cases involving ruling parties. Witnesses are coerced to testify against political opponents, as seen in the Asaram Bapu case where key witnesses turned hostile after threats. This 'conclusions first' approach results in wrongful convictions and erodes public trust. The Supreme Court has noted that such practices undermine the rule of law and create a culture of impunity for the powerful. Without independent oversight, law enforcement becomes a tool for political repression rather than justice.
Quote
02:39:40
“ईडी के किसी केस में तो गवाही शुरू हुई नहीं है परसेंटेज वाइज इट्स इन सिंगल डिजिट दैट इज बिकॉज व्ट एम आई टेलिंग यू मैं आपको क्या बता रहा हूं जो ऊपर से ऑर्डर आया ऑर्डर ये आया कि मुकदमा चलाओ आदमी को बंद करो पर मुकदमा मत चलाना” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:36:45
“आर्ट ऑफ इन्वेस्टिगेशन इज नॉट टू गिव अ लॉलीपॉप इन्वेस्टिगेशन की जिम्मेदारी या जो उसका हुनर है वह एक मुलजिम को लली पॉप देने का नहीं है कि दूसरे मुलजिम के खिलाफ आप बयान दो” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir

ethical-boundaries-for-lawyers

9 / 11

Top lawyers adhere to strict ethical boundaries, refusing to tamper with witnesses or evidence despite client pressure. This integrity is crucial for preserving the justice system's legitimacy.

#criminal-defense2#legal-ethics2
Lawyers refuse to tamper with witnesses or evidence, adhering to professional ethics despite client pressure
  • Top lawyers like Tanveer Mir refuse to instruct witnesses to alter testimonies, even when pressured by clients. The Bar Council of India mandates ethical conduct, including not tampering with evidence or witnesses. In the Priya Darshini case, Mir faced threats but refused to back down, emphasizing his duty to the court. Lawyers' credibility depends on maintaining integrity; violating ethics risks disbarment. The profession's reputation hinges on upholding these boundaries, even in high-stakes cases. This ethical stance is crucial for preserving the justice system's legitimacy. Without it, the legal profession would lose public trust and become indistinguishable from political operatives.
Quote
02:44:35
“मैं नहीं करता टाइम ब्रिंग नहीं करोगे यह मैं नहीं करूंगा मैं अपने क्लाइंट को जरूर यह बताऊंगा कि साहब आपके केस में यह पांच छ गवाह जो है यह अहमियत रखते हैं” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:45:32
“मैं अपने क्लाइंट के लिए कोई पेनिट्रेशन नहीं करूंगा मैं जिंदगी में शुरू से आज तक कभी पुलिस थाने नहीं गया” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Ethical boundaries for lawyers include refusing to participate in police interrogations
  • Lawyers in India are barred from police stations, unlike in the US where they must be present during interrogations. This lack of oversight allows police to coerce confessions without legal supervision. Tanveer Mir refuses to enter police stations, citing the absence of legal protections for clients. In the US, the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to silence with a lawyer present, but India lacks similar safeguards. Without this protection, vulnerable defendants face coercion and abuse. The Bar Council mandates that lawyers avoid police stations to prevent complicity in misconduct. This ethical stance preserves professional integrity but highlights systemic flaws in India's legal framework.
Quote
02:47:25
“मेरा द मेरा दायित्व अदालत का अगर मुझे कानून इजाजत दे जैसे न्यूयॉर्क में दे रहा है कि कोई भी पुलिस वाला मेरे क्लाइंट को मेरी गैज हाजरी में क्वेश्चन नहीं कर सकता” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:46:02
“यूनाइटेड स्टेट्स में पुलिस आपके क्लाइंट को बुलाए तो वकील की गैर हाजिरी में बयान नहीं लिख सकते पूछताछ भी नहीं कर सकते हां तो वहां का जो कानून है वो लयर को एनेबल करता है दैट हिज क्लाइंट उसके क्लाइंट से वहां की पुलिस तभी पूछताछ कर पाएगी जब वकील सामने है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Lawyers' ethical duty requires prioritizing court obligations over client demands
  • Lawyers must prioritize their duty to the court over client requests, even when pressured to bend rules. Example: Tanveer Mir refused to tamper with witnesses despite client demands, emphasizing that his role is to uphold legal procedures. The Bar Council mandates that lawyers act as 'officers of the court', ensuring fair trials rather than personal gain. This duty includes challenging prosecution evidence and procedures, not facilitating corruption. Violating this principle risks disbarment and undermines public trust in the legal profession. Without this ethical boundary, the justice system would collapse into a tool for political or financial manipulation, eroding the rule of law.
Quote
02:45:32
“मैं अपने क्लाइंट के लिए कोई पेनिट्रेशन नहीं करूंगा मैं जिंदगी में शुरू से आज तक कभी पुलिस थाने नहीं गया” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:45:37
“मैं जिंदगी में शुरू से आज तक कभी पुलिस थाने नहीं गया मेरे पास कई क्लाइंट आते हैं कि सर हमारी पुलिस की प्रॉब्लम है आप हमें साथ आ जाए आपकी फीस मिल जाएगी मैं मैंने जाता क्यों उसकी वजह है जो हम सिस्टम है इन कांट डिस्टिंक्शन टू इंग्लैंड अमेरिका फ्रांस जर्मनी सिंगापुर कोलपुर न्यूजीलैंड ऑस्ट्रेलिया हमारे यहां पुलिस थाने में वकील की कोई इजाजत नहीं है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir

case-examples-illustrating-systemic-issues

10 / 11

High-profile cases like Priya Darshini murder and Jessica Lal murder expose systemic failures in witness protection, police corruption, and judicial inefficiencies, highlighting the need for structural reforms.

#legal-reform5#systemic-change2
The Priya Darshini murder case exposed systemic failures in witness protection and police corruption
  • Priya Darshini, a Kashmiri Pandit, was raped and murdered by Santosh Singh, whose father was a high-ranking Delhi Police officer. Despite evidence, police initially failed to act due to political connections, and witnesses faced threats. Tanveer Mir, a university friend, testified despite threats, highlighting the lack of witness protection. The case went to the Supreme Court, where Santosh Singh was initially acquitted but later convicted on appeal. This case exemplifies how political influence can obstruct justice, but also how determined individuals can overcome systemic barriers. It underscores the need for robust witness protection laws and police accountability. Without reforms, similar cases will continue to fail due to institutional corruption.
Quote
00:24:05
“प्रिया दर्शनी के पीछे एक संतोष सिंह नाम का व्यक्ति जो हमारे से एक बैच आगे पढ़ता था और उसके पिता जो है दिल्ली पुलिस में काफी हायर हाई पोजीशन प थे मेरे ख्याल से शायद कमिशनर भी नियुक्त होने वाले थे” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
00:25:13
“संतोष जो है कि साहब शाम को 4:00 बजे के बाद में उसके फ्लैट में जबरदस्ती घुस गया और उसके साथ नाजायज रेप किया उसका गला जो है बिजली की तार से घोटा उसका मर्डर किया” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
The Jessica Lal murder case revealed flaws in evidence handling and police corruption
  • Jessica Lal, a model, was shot dead at a Delhi party in 1999; the main suspect, Manu Sharma, was initially acquitted due to witness tampering. Media pressure and public outrage led to a retrial, resulting in conviction. Ballistic evidence was tampered with, and witnesses turned hostile due to threats. This case highlighted how powerful individuals can manipulate the legal system through influence and bribery. The eventual conviction demonstrated the power of public opinion and media in forcing accountability. However, the initial failure underscored systemic vulnerabilities in evidence collection and witness protection. Without reforms, similar cases will continue to fail due to institutional corruption.
Quote
01:30:22
“जो गई बैलेस्टिक ने गोली चेंज कर ली अब बैलेस्टिक रिपोर्ट गया तो अब प्रोक्यू क्या करेगा” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
01:30:26
“जसिका लाल केस में जो गई बैलेस्टिक ने गोली चेंज कर ली” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
The Delhi Excise Scam exposed political manipulation of law enforcement agencies
  • The Delhi Excise Scam involved allegations of corruption in alcohol licensing under Arvind Kejriwal's government. The CBI and ED were accused of selectively targeting political opponents while ignoring evidence that could exonerate them. Witnesses turned hostile due to political pressure, and investigations were driven by 'conclusions first, evidence later' approach. The Supreme Court has criticized this trend, noting that investigations often start with predetermined outcomes. This case exemplifies how political influence can distort law enforcement, turning agencies into tools for partisan vendettas. Without structural reforms, such manipulations will continue to undermine justice and public trust in institutions.
Quote
02:36:45
“आर्ट ऑफ इन्वेस्टिगेशन इज नॉट टू गिव अ लॉलीपॉप इन्वेस्टिगेशन की जिम्मेदारी या जो उसका हुनर है वह एक मुलजिम को लली पॉप देने का नहीं है कि दूसरे मुलजिम के खिलाफ आप बयान दो” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:39:40
“ईडी के किसी केस में तो गवाही शुरू हुई नहीं है परसेंटेज वाइज इट्स इन सिंगल डिजिट दैट इज बिकॉज व्ट एम आई टेलिंग यू मैं आपको क्या बता रहा हूं जो ऊपर से ऑर्डर आया ऑर्डर ये आया कि मुकदमा चलाओ आदमी को बंद करो पर मुकदमा मत चलाना” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir

systemic-inequalities-in-justice

11 / 11

Systemic inequalities in India's justice system favor the powerful, while the poor and marginalized face disproportionate barriers to fair trials and accountability.

#social-justice2#systemic-change2
Powerful individuals exploit systemic flaws to evade justice, while the poor face disproportionate barriers
  • Wealthy and influential individuals manipulate law enforcement and judicial processes to avoid accountability. Example: In the Delhi Excise Scam, political connections allowed suspects to delay investigations for years. In contrast, poor defendants face immediate arrests and prolonged detention without trial. The judge-to-citizen ratio of 21:1,000,000 means courts are overwhelmed, with trials lasting decades. This creates a two-tier system where the powerful exploit procedural delays, while the poor suffer from wrongful convictions due to inadequate defense. The lack of witness protection further disadvantages vulnerable victims. Without reforms, systemic inequalities will persist, eroding public trust in justice.
Quote
00:01:30
“अगर आपको हमारे चैनल से थोड़ी सी भी वैल्यू मिलती है तो प्लीज हमारे चैनल को सब्सक्राइब कर लीजिए” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:20:39
“जो सोसाइटी की रिएक्शन है बिल्कुल जस्टिफाइड है लेकिन इसमें दो एक्सेप्शन है एक तो जज जो है जो उसका काम है क्योंकि आपके पास तो इंफॉर्मेशन वो नहीं है कि मैंने क्या केस लड़ा क्योंकि जो बात मैंने अभी आपको बताई वो तो आपके नॉलेज डोमेन में नहीं है जज के पास तो है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Legal access is unequal, with wealthy clients receiving top-tier representation while poor defendants face inadequate defense
  • Criminal defense quality varies drastically based on wealth. Wealthy clients hire top lawyers who can navigate procedural loopholes, while poor defendants rely on underfunded public defenders. Example: In the Delhi Excise Scam, high-profile clients secured expensive legal teams, while ordinary citizens faced lengthy trials without adequate representation. Corporate lawyers earn 100+ crore annually, while criminal defense lawyers struggle with inconsistent fees. This disparity undermines the presumption of innocence, as poor defendants often lack resources to challenge evidence effectively. The Supreme Court has noted that inadequate legal aid violates constitutional rights. Without equitable access to justice, systemic inequalities will persist, eroding public trust in the legal system.
Quote
02:23:06
“कॉर्पोरेट लॉयर्स मेक सम मनी जो मर्जस एक्विजिशन पे काम करते आईबी के साथ जो काम सेट पैरामीटर्स होती है कॉपरेट बिलिंग होती है आली बिलिंग होती है टाइम प बिलिंग पैरामीटर होता है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:26:43
“अगर आप बोले कि साहब मैं तो एक बहुत बडे सुप्रीम कोर्ट के लॉयर को रिटेन करूंगा तो शायद आपको उसका रिटेंशन अमाउंट ही 5 करोड़ से अब देना पड़े नहीं तो बात भी ना करे” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Political and economic power enables systemic manipulation of justice processes
  • Powerful individuals exploit connections to influence investigations, trials, and sentencing. Example: In the Unnao rape case, the accused MLA used political clout to intimidate victims and witnesses. In the Delhi Excise Scam, political pressure delayed investigations for years. The absence of witness protection laws allows powerful actors to silence testimony. This creates a culture of impunity where the rich evade justice while the poor face harsh penalties. The Supreme Court has noted that media and political influence distort judicial outcomes. Without structural reforms, systemic inequalities will persist, undermining the rule of law and public trust in institutions.
Quote
00:00:22
“आईपीएस ऑफिसर ने पब्लिक प्लेटफॉर्म पे बात करी कि साहब मैं आईपीएस ऑफिसर तो हूं लेकिन मैं उस कुत्ते की तरह हूं जिसका पटा पॉलिटिशियन के हाथ में है” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Quote
02:34:15
“जो हमारा सिस्टम चलता है उसमें यह अभी भी एक बहुत बड़ा फैक्टर है हालांकि इससे सोसाइटी जिदो जहद कर रही है ब आज भी होता है रियलिटीज की होता है रियलिटी तो है ही” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
⚙ Agent-readable JSON index — click to expand
{
  "memcast_version": "0.1",
  "episode":  {
    "id": "th9OBsL0M60",
    "title": "Top Criminal Cases, Corruption In Police, Politician & Lawyer - Tanveer Ahmed Mir |F0229 Raj Shamani",
    "podcast": "Raj Shamani",
    "guest": "Tanveer Ahmed Mir",
    "host": "Raj Shamani",
    "source_url": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th9OBsL0M60",
    "duration_minutes": 173
  },
  "concepts":  [
    {
      "id": "constitutional-duty-of-defense-lawyers",
      "title": "constitutional-duty-of-defense-lawyers",
      "tags":  [
        "legal-ethics",
        "constitutional-ai",
        "criminal-defense"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "witness-protection-system-failures",
      "title": "witness-protection-system-failures",
      "tags":  [
        "corruption",
        "legal-procedures"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "police-corruption-and-systemic-issues",
      "title": "police-corruption-and-systemic-issues",
      "tags":  [
        "institutional-flow",
        "corruption",
        "law-enforcement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "media-influence-on-legal-proceedings",
      "title": "media-influence-on-legal-proceedings",
      "tags":  [
        "daily-bias"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "judicial-system-inefficiencies",
      "title": "judicial-system-inefficiencies",
      "tags":  [
        "legal-reform",
        "court-infrastructure"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "corporate-vs-criminal-law-earnings",
      "title": "corporate-vs-criminal-law-earnings",
      "tags":  [
        "fee-revenue"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "political-influence-on-law-enforcement",
      "title": "political-influence-on-law-enforcement",
      "tags":  [
        "corruption",
        "law-enforcement"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "legal-procedures-and-flaws",
      "title": "legal-procedures-and-flaws",
      "tags":  [
        "legal-reform",
        "legal-procedures"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "ethical-boundaries-for-lawyers",
      "title": "ethical-boundaries-for-lawyers",
      "tags":  [
        "criminal-defense",
        "legal-ethics"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-examples-illustrating-systemic-issues",
      "title": "case-examples-illustrating-systemic-issues",
      "tags":  [
        "legal-reform",
        "systemic-change"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "systemic-inequalities-in-justice",
      "title": "systemic-inequalities-in-justice",
      "tags":  [
        "social-justice",
        "systemic-change"
      ]
    }
  ]
}