 specifically short skills. And when we think about the growing topic of the ADRs and the importance of the same, and normally the mediators who are coming across are who have originally donned as an advocate, the robes of the advocacy, and thereafter have taken more leaps and more as a mediator like Mr. Jawad. And then are there common facets which are required for the advocacy and mediation? Or there are several differences between the two which require specifically different type of short skills which are required for the purposes of advocacy and for mediation. What are the common issues which can be, or skills which can be seen across in an advocacy or which can be enhanced? These are the perspective which we will talk about in this session. And for the participants who are watching us live on the Facebook, YouTube as well as on this platform, we would like to appraise that amongst us we have two persons who are not only wonderful human beings, advocates, mediators, and above all I will say to state that they say that the profession is a jealous mistress. And in that process, sometimes one even doesn't want to share the knowledge. But amongst us we have Mr. Amadit Singh Chandyok who's a former additional Solicitor General of India coupled with the president of the Delhi Bar Association. And he's also presently the president of the Elec Bar Association. And Mr. Ajay Jawad who is a well-known face not only amongst the students as well as on this platform where we find him sharing his knowledge. And Mr. Chandyok on one of the webinars where we had Mr. J.B. Singh and Mr. Jawad, he just during that peep showed his pearls of wisdoms. And as before we were going live, he was saying that Mr. Jawad is an ocean of knowledge. But I can say that it goes without saying but Mr. Chandyok is one of those pearls probably Mr. Jawad has brought us on this platform so that we can actually learn the nuances of short skills and this platform, this entire webinar would be a first session we would like around 15, 20 minutes Mr. Chandyok will take across what are the short skills which are required for an advocacy? And then Mr. Jawad will take us what are the short skills required for the purposes of mediation? And during this entire session we will also take across that as they say they are like the habits. Certain habits we cultivate by absorption and observations and certain skills are which we learn by reading also and some by observation itself. And what are the skills which can be sharpened across as they say that acts may be the sharpest at one point of time if it is not sharpened up. It will not cut the same amount of trees if it is not sharpened up. Same is with the profession as well as in the mediation because as they say old-order changes yielding place to new and we remember that when mediation was being brought in both of them the keynote speakers for today are the pioneers who actually propelled this mediation to the profession as such. And as in the ordinary courses that first there is the resistance then silence and then the acceptance. I believe that we are in the third phase of that people have started accepting. Without taking much time I know that the speakers have a giant personalities and people are willing to share their, hear them when they share their knowledge and how the skills can be enhanced. Over to you Mr. Chindyok and we are actually immensely happy that you have accepted our invite though it took us one year we serve was so busy. I kept on persisting with the serve when we exchanged the morning messages serve we are looking forward and Mr. Jawad helped us to facilitate that. And they as they say whatever may be the source the catalyst brings the best result that is what we learned in the chemistry. And Mr. Jawad you can unmute for that for time. Over to you Mr. Chindyok. Thank you Vikas. Thank you Jawad for giving me this opportunity to share this platform with you. I just said as Vikas mentioned just before we started this that actually I am a small drop before an ocean but here is an ocean who does not like to swallow the drop but allows the drop to grow and finds good things about it encourages the drop to grow. And that I think is the first facet of if you can ask me personally is a soft skill of any human being let's forget the advocacy, forget the mediation that's the first soft skill of a human being that you allow a smaller or even not smaller people to coexist with you with the skills and then help them sharpen up their skills so that ongoing change that is coming today in the society ongoing change that is coming in law and the dispute resolution process. We have in fact, I don't know whether Jawad I ever had an occasion to share that with you but I think it's time come that we have to look to word dispute solution rather than resolution here. So we are looking at an out dispute resolution and I first factor that I think common between advocacy on one hand and mediation on the other though of course, Jawad is going to speak largely on those aspects but I think the first thing in both the time both the cases is that you have to be first a person who is a human being by body one that God bestowed on us but you have to be human being by heart human being by your emotion human being by your work human being by your commitment and if you get that I think that's your first soft skill that you get because advocacy to my mind is nothing except a calling to the bar and if that not withstanding that we have brought technology digitization and everything but that still remains the same position it has not been changed in fact, Dave for yesterday while speaking at some place I had said that I think the greatest injustice the Supreme Court did was to make a judgment that was I think the author was our new member of the parliament who is former Chief Justice of India where he said as senior advocate as to be you have to have a numerical numbers as if he's passing an examination it's an honor bestowed by the court on him for his commitment to the cause of justice or access to justice if I can use that and I think this marking that I give four marks because I happen to be related to Vikas or five marks that I happen to be in Chandigarh should not be there it's an honor conferred on a person and that honor must be by a court knowing his potential knowing that what would be his contribution or what is his contribution to the cause of justice and nothing more but having said that the soft skill for advocacy by a large except for the emotional part except for counseling part et cetera which probably I advocate can't do would be common between the two aspects of life because what does it really soft skill means it means a communication skill and excuse my saying so most of the time we don't communicate actually we only prepare a person to listen to our communication I give the give that an example I can tell the judge that I have this case I'm only preparing him I'm not communicating with him I would be able to communicate with him and I think that's one part of the advocacy that we need to bring up courage and that courage must bring me to home to the point to the honorable judge and communicate with him rather than making that my Lord my submission is this and I in fact most of us say that I also say the same thing even if my Lord is wrong Lord should say that Lord should be right but the distinction is here that's the way we put it now that's the soft skill what else it is you're telling the judge is hitting him back actually saying that what you're saying is wrong but you're not telling him is wrong that's exactly what you're doing in your daily life what else are you doing therefore you are communicating to the judge preparing him to understand what you ultimately want to convey to him we take him through Supreme Court we take him through various high courts but actually you're communicating one part only and that communication is that the case that you have come to stand up as the officer of the court that point is this it's that communication alone that taking us to preparing him from all the remaining communication that we take hours to argue in the court it reminds me of the time when he writes you see and one day in the Supreme Court his advocate on record could not bring the paper book in time so the judges thought this is a good way to take dig on him they said Mr. Shathri today you don't even have the brief he said no, the brief will come later just pick up specifically fact he picked up specifically fact took up section 10 interpreted four times in four different ways by that time the brief reached and said look at the high court high court does not look at any one of them so notice of issues they was granted so therefore it is the communication the first soft skill of advocacy is how do you communicate and I think we have seen that all stalwarts Mr. Shokes and was arguing when I was on the of course on the other side I thought probably he was arguing my case lunch came in and after lunch he said my learned friend is going to argue all this I'm telling you a lot beforehand preparing you for it my argument is this now this is a soft skill there's nothing else he was probably told at lunch time by the advocate on record or solution about this is the argument of the other side so he changes the whole thing after lunch now this is the soft skill therefore a lawyer has to be on his feet because many judges differ with their approach to the problem a judge may like to have more factual depth into it the other may say give me a law point first I'll come to facts later the third one may say no give me those essential facts that are required and tell me how do you apply that law that you want me to interpret therefore a lawyer's first soft skill also has to be before whom are you appearing unlike what we normally see people look at vikas because they say vikas want chalta hai javaad want chalta hai nahi that's not the soft skill soft skill is you should be able to read the judge because you are appearing before the honorable court every day as to what he would require me to say a court may require factual narration to be more important than ultimately applying the law because he said I know the law you tell me your facts and tell me the point I'll probably apply the law but the fact remains is that's the soft skill that a lawyer must have how do I communicate and what do I communicate here do I communicate facts do I communicate point of law or many times we see today especially happening after we have got this computerization every one sentence is taken from the computer and said my lord in 1987 Supreme Court to SCC paid 24 para 24 we said this judge said I don't know the facts boss I don't know what is the point that you are saying what will supreme court do so please first soft skill of a lawyer is he must have mastery of facts and I think I don't know how many in the audience are people who have done trials but I can give you from my experience of a trial that one one is going for a trial they saw the greatest skill one had that one knew from one cover to the other cover of the file you don't know what I'm going to put in the cross examination you don't know what document are you going to put you don't know what document the other side is going to put to your client so therefore the factual mastery of skill is one of the soft skills that you must have and how do you communicate you will find many times that your experience is richer than mine you would see from the cross examination you are able to make out your own case from other side cross examination and I give you an instance many of you may have appeared before this lordship either as a consumer forum or even at the high court honorable Mr. Justice V.K. Jain was not the Chief Justice Punjab but I'm talking about another V.K. Jain sir he was a subordinate judge and a case was payment of rent so the case of the tenant from the other side by me was that I give him rent every by cash sometimes he should have received sometimes it doesn't issue to seek so my first question in cross examination was that you have not sought any rental from this time to this time so therefore this payment was made to you sometimes you would give receipt sometimes you did not give receipt first answer the second answer was I put to him 5 receipts which were have a gap of 5 different months so I said where are the receipts or counter files of the remaining 5 months he said I did not issue them and I closed my cross examination and I still remember Mr. V.K. Jain who was then this subordinate judge said are you sure I said I'm sure and he dismissed that suit and he made that remark when he was a judge in high court saying that this instance is from this gentleman I learned where to stop cross examination now that communication is cause of examination you may communicate in cross examination you may communicate with the honorable judge you may communicate to the other side now see the third part when I'm having Vikas opposing me or Jawad opposing me or anybody else opposing me I started talking of them rather than the case now I start having dig at them now that's not communication I must also know that I must respect my opponent as much as I respect the judge and I keep saying this and I have no hesitation in repeating it that if there is no litigant there will be no court requirement if there will be no court requirement there will be no lawyer requirement what will we do we all be briefless it is the litigant who is providing me the capacity to build up myself therefore I must respect my litigant and I must respect my opponent he may have a viewpoint he is doing his duty you may meet his argument but you have no business to talk anything and everything about it and many times we say my learned friend said this and we take a dig at it but sometimes wit is different than a dig one of the soft skill of a lawyer has to be witty but it can't be that you start raising your eyebrows on the other side wit could be something which may come instantially you may not even thinking of that point to come in and I can give you an instance you have known Justice Sikri was being achieved justice is there with you Justice Sikri was sitting with Justice Patnaik in the Supreme Court we were in a review petition before them earlier judgement was by Justice Sotantar Kumar who also happened to be from Chandigarh and a very dear friend otherwise and not a single argument of mine was noticed in that judgement so I was in review so first thing I caught up and I said my lord my first problem is this the government has issued me a show cause notice saying that you have asked for fee of 5 days appearance not a single argument of yours is reported what should I reply to that but I don't know that's why I am going to review so Justice Patnaik says Mr. Chandigarh says something with some sense of what are you saying this doesn't work here I said my lord all those people who possess good sense have fortunately gone to the other side nothing is left in the bar now so Justice Sikri I still remember put up his file in front of him and told Justice Patnaik don't touch him more than this ultimately of course the review was allowed so what I am saying is that you have to touch that situation the situation may come to you handy therefore don't lose your cool be witty witty is different thing than cool and then getting upset with it and many judges will try and provoke you so that you get upset so that you get upset you lose your thought process when you lose thought process communication becomes defective and that's where you lost your mind so the second soft skill for a lawyer is he must maintain his cool irrespective of the provocation that you may get from any source whether it's the honorable judge or the other side you must keep that objectivity must keep that cool with you because then only you will be able to carry the baton forward and of course judge is going to speak to you on listening parts listening skill which is a very soul of mediation I would say and I think even as a lawyer I need to listen I must have the soft skill of listening I must listen to the for example the question that the judge may put it it may be relevant don't ignore it many times we just try to scuttle it answer that question to the best of your ability because then you will feel satisfied that the man knows what he is wanting to do therefore this part of the whole skill was round in art of listening when you listen to the other side carefully when you listen to the honorable judge carefully you listen to yourself carefully let me go to the extent then you are actually able to communicate better ultimately is the communication that is the ultimate part of everything is communication how do you communicate in manner in which you communicate and these things are today not there but I can tell you as a very probably two years or three years old lawyer was arguing in a court and the judge was just I mean he was not saying abusing me but nothing less than that also some gentlemen came from behind an elderly senior council and he had beta bad job I sat down he picked up the statute which I had referring to and answers the court and the court issues notice and we are out and I touch his feet everything goes down ten years down the line I am sitting behind there is another gentleman arguing I go in front and say could you lordship keep it for after two days I would like to assist you he says I will issue a notice of contempt I said lordship may issue it but after two three days so anyway he adjourned it he sent for me at one o'clock and said I don't know why did I restain myself from issue I could notice of contempt you were interfering in judicial proceedings so I said please listen to my answer if you still feel you issue notice and I will plead guilty so I said I was in this position this was that case and would you like to know who was the gentleman who came to my rescue my lord it was your father if your father taught me wrong then I did something wrong please issue notice of contempt and I am going to accept it and obviously the judge had to rise from his chair in his chamber and said I am sorry I think I did a mistake now these are ways these are communications there is nothing else it is the manner you conduct yourself and I can assure my august gathering your conduct will play a paramount even if you lose a matter doesn't matter I have seen people well you see a supreme court in 2021 agrees with four contention of the petitioner yet dismisses it what is that answer nobody knows the supreme court only knows about therefore don't mistake yourself that you probably yes if you did your best you done your job and I have seen from experience where I lost matters more matters came from that solicitor rather than people where I actually succeeded in the matters therefore success story does not go with advocacy at all does not go with it and then comes a very very important point which again I am sure Joad is going to take up more in more detail than I can do empathy we as lawyers need that empathy we as lawyers must develop that empathy it actually means what you will even in the case of advocacy will be different than when Joad is going to come back and tell us on mediation their empathy is a different meaning than what I am talking advocacy here I must understand if I was to put my client in the place of the other side of the other side's client in my place what would be the effect that's your empathy as a lawyer it consists of many features what is that the judge I mean any human being whether it's an honorable judge or not if you say your lordship had decided this case in certain side days half your situation is gone he has calmed down because you are citing his own judgment you are citing his point of view even if it is irrelevant of the case you say lordship would remember that fine judgment that you made and let me give you all an example of it you will find there are three presidency courts in India that is Bombay Calcutta Madras in fact we had our supreme courts there then came to high court that's the history of this those high courts you could file a suit even for Delhi property the local locality of the territorial jurisdiction was not important for them they would grant you leave we thought Delhi was also one of them so we took that situation to say in Delhi also you could file a suit even for a property in Chennai the Delhi high court then came forward and that's where your education skill comes in where you make a distinction between a presidency court constituted by something totally different than a high court constituted by act of 1966 so you are a constitutional court alright because you are a high court but you are created by a statute you are not created by a presidency enactment that was there at that state therefore these small distinctions will bring you make you outstanding many people say I am outstanding because I am standing outside the court only never gone inside but that's another way I am looking at outstanding part many people say this is part of our life part of our advocacy there is no doubt about it I know of my colleagues who come to the high court or the supreme court who hardly go to the court not that they have not come I will call them still outstanding because they are a human in law their mannerism the mannerism they will pick it up if you go to them for help they are not going to throw you out they will make you sit down they will help you out therefore time has come to bring those old traditions back when I came to the bar my senior told me whenever you finish your matter then go to this court where Mr. Vikas Chaturth is arguing go to a court where Jawad is arguing go to court where Shilaji is arguing maybe you get something and that's where you develop that soft skill of advocacy by watching somebody else do something in the court which today we don't have first we don't have time second we are not processed through that procedure to do so and I must give you this example and I think it makes me feel very happy to tell you all a junior colleague of somebody used to watch Mr. Vikas Chaturth in the court and start taking notes she got married started doing her work for her own husband's company's group of companies but carried those notes that she had made in Delhi High Court and once she met Mr. Vikas Chaturth and said Vikas said what are you doing she says no I am helping my own self my own work is sufficient to keep me busy but there is an inspiration sir and that inspiration is what I saw you arguing in court I still reopen my books and take them back and learn from there what I need to learn therefore it is an ongoing process I think the Bar Council in fact this morning I have written a letter I think Jawahar will bear me out to say that when you have made mediation a compulsory subject in university at least make that as a subject even for professionals I am not talking about lawyers only because that is a regulatory authority for lawyers but we are looking at today that why can't we as lawyers also have an ongoing education system make it compulsory for us that we must attend 5 webinars even if they are not seminars write 5 things even if they are wrong doesn't matter it's a viewpoint you will bring people to debate that's what you do every day in part of your advocacy you bring a point the other side says no the judge decides it many times it doesn't decide it even and I am not making any folly with respect to whether they are honourable judges or my friends on the bar we all must become fraternity we are not becoming fraternity I started looking at whether Mr. Jawahar is now moving in a BMW or a Mercedes car I am not looking at that lawyer in Maruti but has that skill to match that BMW I must look at that gentleman I must look at that young boy or girl and today with so much going on in the economic laws I can see that through the pandemic that I see the changes that have been brought in changes not brought in by the statutory parts changes brought in by human behaviour changes lawyers have brought in I mean I remember having writing settling 7-8 contracts during this pandemic on force measure only because we brought parties together to reconsider and the entire contract to the extent of that we needed to change it we needed to change it and we changed it now it doesn't require what skill Jawahar that Jawahar probably will do something far better than what I could do but yes still could be smaller event but please don't think because smaller events make a bigger picture one day we started very small in fact Vikas mentioned it when we started this mediation part after the amendment of 2002 nobody knew what is mediation we started that about 2 months before we started our centre in Delhi High Court the district court had made a centre and that was demolished by lawyers totally demolished but we took up on ourselves we said fine we will start a small way we started a small room and today 32 rooms for mediation alone forget the arbitration separately this is where you need to be objective this is where you need to have your skills sharpen them up so even with respect to our advocacy mediation needs to play a role here apart from Bar Council of India Bar Council of Delhi Bar Council of Chandigarh we need to groom our people not only youngsters many people say only youngsters need that why? how many people will be able to answer me a question that if there is a venture holder and there is a SEBI on one side ROC on the other where will I go whether I will go to NCLT or SEBI he is a debenture holder but that debenture says ultimately I will become a shareholder see that complex situation that is coming and I don't know what is the last viewer I mean I know partly but I am sure you will be able to tell us some people feel we should not know the first principles of law when we are mediators I don't agree some people feel anybody can be an arbitrator I don't agree I mean I am an expert in that field but I must know the soft skill that means the fundamentals of that principle of law soft skill is nothing else it's actually what is advocacy? it means a capacity to project a point of view nothing else I mean the simple meaning is this only I may be LLB, I may be LLM it brings me back to one of the questions that a client had raised he goes to a lawyer and does not ask his visiting card he comes out and says oh sorry I didn't ask him let me write his address and he finds on the board outside it is not written LLB it says LLM so he goes back he says can I have my papers back he says you are not even LLB boss wow I don't think I can tell you no this is what I am requesting we have stopped laughing in the court we have stopped enjoying in the court one of the soft skill of advocacy is I must enjoy what I am doing I must be smiling all the time even if the judge is growling doesn't matter your smile will make him smile too because I don't know whether he had a good breakfast whether his wife was good at morning or not maybe he read a brief which I thought was horrible wixatious could be anything after all he is a human being therefore you must make it lively for him to appreciate because you can't appreciate law unless you are happy and I think happiness goes with law happiness goes with every development of law if I am not happy I don't think I can be an advocate and adopt a soft skill of advocacy to assist justice which is a constitutional norm therefore I need to be happy I understand I am not saying people don't have difficulties this is world of difficulty who knew pandemic is going to come in our life we were thinking pandemic has gone our bar association right from supreme court is talking about physical area and here in Delhi, Bombay, Maharashtra Pune, Nagpur I find everywhere we are going back to the same situation what is suffering today so therefore meeting that situation why should I not thank vikas for this opportunity that not withstanding pandemic he thought on a Sunday evening we should be together to discuss something which will make our lives happier which will make us smile which will make us meet each other even if it is virtual and that itself an effort I think which is worth it and this is part of our advocacy to learn something new we may learn it by reading a book I mean times have gone now when we I mean my time I had acquittal that brown color AIR digest we wanted to look for it and flag that those days have gone today everything is online but having said that to you I think we need to today regulate ourselves and we will only be regulate ourselves we will come as a fraternity together I don't mean any disrespect to anybody but I can give you two instances of that and I think I will probably take more time than I was given by a vikas A the Delhi High Court is a closed court, centrally air conditioned we didn't have that past system at that time but many lawyers would come and say that we don't get a seat to sit outside the court rooms while you are waiting so a survey was conducted and we found during this time of summer good old times of 2012 we found 79 people sitting and snoozing in the daytime who had no matter had nothing to do with the court one part it is just on a lighter vein I wanted to tell you but there is a fact of the matter is that we have many people who are in the black courts who are not councils who are not lawyers we need to become fraternity one if we have to adopt our soft skills then we need to ouster jurisdiction of these people to go out I am not against whether company secretary should practice law or not or chartered accountant should practice law or not these are market forces that must work I have no objection in their working but I still feel if I can give you an instance if a man queen's council once came to Delhi everybody thought entire wisdom of law has gone into it though ultimately lost his case so please don't think that somebody is white somebody is black somebody is taller somebody is white weird like me wisdom is prevailing no wisdom prevails with our work and commitment to that cause and that cause of justice cause is to how to make the truth come through and if truth has to come through and time has come for all seniors or juniors alike that if in a given case I find four matters four issues too can be resolved I will probably approach Jawad and say let's finish this remaining two we will adjudicate upon that's the time that has come because time is today important especially in relation to conflicts in commercial law therefore my soft skills in advocacy must change today also with respect to whether I should now allow a litigant to have lesser time whether it's mediation whether it's of course consolation is going away things so Jawad will tell us and if an opportunity comes I will update you people on that but the fact remains is that we need to look at this part to see how do I master my facts and please read your statutes that's another soft skill because every day there's a change we brought IBC in 2016 four times it has been amended by the legislature and every third month I find a new regulation coming in sometime liquidation rules comes in, sometime adjudicatory rules comes in and every day there's something new coming in the economic loss you saw that two to three days ago the government said interest gauge goes down then they record it that's political that nothing do with my soft skill of advocacy but I must develop an advocacy to see is there a rationale that's article 14 is there something arbitrary is there something coming that will impede the access to justice and it's time for us as fraternity to stand up to say a my dear supreme court access to justice is basic structure of the constitution let us all not destroy it together and especially you as the highest court of the land thank you very much I'm here to answer I think Javed should tell you thank you very much sir because you want to say something yeah it's always a pleasure when Mr. Jawad as they say I'm going back to the memories there was a movie famous as Amar Akbar and Anthony it was very popular when there was a trial so when we brought Mr. Jawad and Mr. Sain I saw that Mr. Chandyok thought that I should also chip in and he just came on and with a famous helicopter shocker of MS Dhoni he chipped in and people liked him and today when we had Mr. Jawad and Mr. Chandyok we have Mr. Sain today on the platform so I say that they always work in tandem before I ask Mr. Jawad to take in I just ask you will have Mr. Sain who is self an authority to give his views separately since he is here we should be privileged to hear him but as they say it is not a commercial break but a break from the entire scheme of affairs where we ask Mr. Sain to bring in and before we ask Mr. Sain I am rightly said by Mr. Chandyok that as they say silent and listen it's a very common what good morning message we receive that both carry the same word but it carries the different connotation and different aspects and that's what we have learned from Mr. Chandyok that for an art of Hizro KC it's not only when to speak and how to speak the silence is a part and how to listen and what is the empathy like Mr. Jawad that took one session on that aspect also the speaking skills etc I would ask Mr. Sain if he is there Mr. Sain could you unmute yourself because I mean this is time that you know when Sir speaks and we have Jawad is better that we listen you know and when Sir said that you must enjoy I think that's my biggest takeaway today that unless you enjoy what you do you cannot be good at it and so therefore I am here to listen and it's a great privilege to be listening to Mr. Chandyok and Jawad you know on this occasion so let's all listen to them thank you so much but we would not allow you to go like that way by the end of the session we will ask you when we will have a common question and answer we will also ask you to chip in rather say that you are an integral part of this entire process wherein we can have your views and that will always take we had the icing but the cherry on the top is why you are there thank you so much very well said Vikash thank you JP for joining us today thank you so much thanks Vikash for giving me this opportunity to share the stage with stalwarts like Mr. Chandyok and JP Singh and Sheila Bahen is here so it's well Mr. Chandyok said a lot of nice things about me but then that actually shows you know what see we always keep evolving so we are people we are persons first and then we become personalities with wisdom but when personality is infused with humility you are an institution and that is what I regard Mr. Chandyok as he is an institution in himself so it's the greatness you know they say he is greatest who makes you feel also great so he has that very unique quality in him that he makes even small people like me feel very great so I am very grateful to him for that thank you sir now one remark of Mr. Chandyok about humor so I just want to start this with a small joke I don't know how far that joke will make you laugh it may fall flat but the idea is to convey a message through that so there was this very contentious mediation that was going on it was the divorce mediation and the mediator had conducted several marathon sessions with the husband and wife and finally out of sheer exasperation the husband told the mediator I am giving her my penthouse I am giving her my Bentley I am giving her 1 million dollars as alimony what more does she want the mediator turns to the wife and the wife smiles sweetly at the mediator and says all I want for him is to listen to me the way you do so listening as Mr. Chandyok pointed out it is one of the finest or the greatest soft skill forget being an advocate forget being a mediator forget being a judge which every person should possess it's a soft skill that is the we don't listen there is a difference between listening and hearing if you ask me what is the difference between listening and hearing I would like to go back again to our court system which Mr. Chandyok was talking about we say that the court is hearing my case we say the court heard the matter the hearing is going on we don't say the listening is going on we don't say the judge is listening to me why do we say that it's because the judge is concerned only with the facts and the law so he is hearing you he is hearing the facts he is hearing the law like we hear a sound but we listen to music so what is the difference between listening and hearing when you listen to the emotions the feelings that is listening so you are not just hearing the facts or hearing the message that the person is trying to convey but you are also tuning into what the person is feeling about that information and that is what distinguishes hearing and listening so when you come into the mediation context we call listening as the golden art of listening the skill and a substantial amount of time is spent in teaching that skill to people who aspire to become mediators and even after you become a mediator at least in my experience personally I have to say that many times I don't find myself listening because one of the biggest problems with all of us that we have is we listen to only 25% of our capacity to listen the rest of the message gets distorted or we forget or we misunderstand several things happen to that message so we get only 25% of what this conveyed to us is what we understand main reason why experts say that happens is because we are not listening to understand we are listening to answer so even as somebody speaking if supposing this was a conversation which Mr. Chandyok was having with me if supposing Mr. Chandyok and I were arguing a case I would really dread the prospect because I know he will make mincemeat out of me but if I were arguing what I would be doing is when I am when he is talking I will be preparing myself to answer him so I won't really be listening to him so most of the time what we do is we listen to judge we listen to answer not to understand so listening to understand is a very crucial skill that I think everybody needs to learn not just mediators but also advocates also doctors also engineers also judges so all of us need to master that art of listening how do we listen we all say you know that communication there was a gentleman called Albert Mehrabian he came out with the principle that 7% of the message is comprised in the words that we speak 38% is in our tone of voice and 55% is in our body language how we express that now for example I always give this example to in the training programs that I conduct if I speak a sentence I never sold the course to you if I write it down to you how you interpret that depends on where you put the emphasis on so you can understand the sentence in 6 different ways depending on how you read it whereas when you are listening to me you will know exactly what I mean because I can say that I never sold the course to you I never sold the course to you I never sold the course to you it's not my business to sell horses I never sold any horses I never sold the course to you I give it to you as a gift or maybe you stole it from me I never sold the course to you I never sold that course to you that's a white horse what I sold to you was a black horse I never sold that horse to you I sold your donkey or a cow or a buffalo I never sold the course to you I never sold the course to you I sold it to Mr. Sandhya so you see when I speak depending on my tone of voice where I lay emphasis on you can get the real meaning of what I am trying to say so you see how important listening is even in the court context we say that in a trial nowadays things have changed drastically but in our good old days I am also an old man now so Mr. Sandhya will bear me out when I say that there always there was a rule I don't know whether it's a written rule or an unwritten rule that the judge who conducts the trial could hear the final arguments and pass the judgment because he has seen the demeanor of the witness so the demeanor of the witness used to play a very important role Chief examination used to play a very important role my senior used to tell me that chief examination is as crucial as the cross examination because you should know what you should ask and what not to ask from your own client so now today we have proof of it so even that is dispensable so the judge doesn't get the opportunity to hear the chief examination cross examination and sometimes you know judges nowadays we have this rule of transferring judges I think for subordinate judiciary I think it's quite frequent once in six months or once in a year or whatever it is so judges keep getting transferred so most of the time the judge who conducts the trial who has witnessed the trial will not be delivering the judgment so he really doesn't know what was the demeanor of the witness and anyway time so much of time passes the time the trial gets over with all the adjournments and all the different things that happen that finally the judge would have forgotten what exactly even if he is the judge who had the occasion to watch the witness he would have forgotten what was the demeanor of the witness what I am trying to say here is listening is such an important skill and how do you develop this art of listening there is something what we call as active listening in our mediation language now if we have to understand active listening we have to understand what is inactive listening inactive listening is everything we do probably I have read the case as lawyer inactive listening I always give an acronym as ARM ARM means mango I am sure everybody likes mangoes so ARM A A A M what happens when a client comes to us first we analyze the case of the client then we advise the client and then we argue with the client whether some part of what what he says can go in the pleadings or cannot go in the pleadings whether a document will be acceptable or not acceptable it's a different matter later on we also argue in the court we argue in the court we don't speak in the court we argue in the court but before that we argue with the client and then we minimize if supposing the client is talking about his or her feelings we say okay that's not relevant actually you know because we are concerned with the facts and the law what are the documents you have and what does the law say about that and how we can you know use all that information and put it into a framework that would be accepted in a court of law how can we put it in a legal framework so that is what we do so in that is known as inactive listening because as mediators we cannot analyze with the client party we cannot say that oh why do you think this is so no no no I don't think it is like that we can't argue we can't advise and definitely we cannot minimize whatever the person is feeling so we need to respect the feeling we need to acknowledge those feelings we need to validate those feelings so inactive listening consists of all those things that we would normally do as lawyers which we are not supposed to do as mediators so what is active listening what do we do when we are actively listening to somebody often for most is because we communicate at two levels we communicate with our body language which Albert Mehrabian says is 55% of our communication so when we are listening also we have to demonstrate that we are listening to the person typically demonstrate actually show the person that we are listening we all know about the saying justice should not only be done but seem to be done similarly you should not only listen but show that you are listening so your listening should be seen by the other person so we have a way of we say that we have to sit in front of the person or stand in front of the person look at the person have an eye contact you know sufficiently lean forward but if you are standing just put your head we had this very great leader in Tamil Nadu called Kamaraj my friend Bharat Chakravarti gives the example of how Kamaraj used to listen he literally used to bend down and lend his ear so if anybody spoke to him bend down and listen to the person so that shows that you are listening you are interested in what the person is saying so you demonstrate through your body language that you are listening but the second part of it is what is your verbal response to that how do you show the person that you are listening you nod your head you say aha oh I see and then you also clarify because sometimes you can misunderstand what the person is saying the person may mean one thing but you may understand it in a different way in a different sense so you clarify and then you reflect back to the person to show the person that you have heard and understood what the person is saying and then you summarize to show that all the important points that the person is trying to convey to you have been understood by you so these are all the active listening skills that a mediator learns when the mediator is getting trained as a mediator so communication skills as Mr Chandyok said are extremely vital for us it's a life skill I'm sure Mr Chandyok and everybody else in this audience would agree with me when I say that communication skills particularly the listening skills are virtually life skills if only you listen to people if you only listen to what they're trying to say because there might be a difference between what the person is saying and what the person means understand that it's very important to actively listen to the person because words do not convey the entire message as I have already said so you need to listen to what the hidden messages and that hidden message can come to you only when you're observing the person when you're observing the body language of the person when you're listening very closely when you're listening attentively now what happens to us when we're listening is for all of us we are all victims of what is called as mind chatter because in the human brain they say that you know millions of thoughts keep flashing through every minute every second hundreds and thousands of thoughts keep just flashing through so what happens is when we are listening our mind is somewhere else we are thinking of something else oh my wife asked me to bring this I forgot now I'm going to get a mouthful when I go back home so my thoughts are there I'm thinking about that I have to become my daughter from school I'm getting late so my body language shows that my one foot will be pointing towards the door so if I'm standing and listening my body would be turned away from the person so that you know it automatically reflects that I'm in a hurry to go so we should be conscious about all these things so the soft skills when we talk about soft skills whether it is advocacy whether it is mediation this is something that as Mr. Chandio very rightly pointed out and he also pointed out through many of his experiences the anecdotes were really very interesting because the anecdotal experience is something that especially from people with experience people who have been through that who have seen that who have experienced it that really explains to us in a much better way as to what actually we need to do now what are the other soft skills that you need in a mediation what is of course the communication skills in which listening is one of the most important part so once you have listened fully and you have understood you don't go into the next stage in a mediation unless and until you have understood everything properly now we always have this hurry because when lawyers become mediators we are in a hurry to find solution because we know the answers we know what should be done we know where the law what the law says about it we are in a great hurry to jump into finding solutions now that is a temptation that we need to avoid if you can just go on youtube and just put funny chocolate ads and search for some videos you will come across some very interesting videos one of the videos is where this person is coming from a jog and his luxury sedan is parked over there and he is leaning on that and doing some stretching exercises and there is this gentleman who is having this chocolate and driving in a truck and coming the car is parked at the edge of the cliff and this person goes there and he he pushes the car over the cliff looks very happily at that man and walks away from there and gets back into his truck and drives away so that is what happens if you don't understand fully what the people are trying to say to you you jump into solutions so once you have listened and you have understood unless and until you have understood not just the fact not just the position but also how the parties feel about it and that is where the empathetic listening which Mr. Chandyak referred to empathy empathy is a very critical part of listening and you need to show the person that you understand what the person feels you don't necessarily have to agree with that person because it becomes sympathy so when you listen to somebody with empathy you are showing the person that you understand what the person is feeling about emotions play a very critical role and that is where mediation stands on a different footing from any other dispute resolution process because if you take litigation or arbitration the current element is most of the time lacking over there the client loses control once the client walks into the lawyer's office the client loses control whereas in mediation the client retains control till the end because it is he or he who is the affected party and it is their problem so they retain the control so the mediator's next soft skill that comes into play after understanding what the root cause of the conflict is what the parties really feel about the situation how they are viewing the situation what are their perspectives and then you go into the problem solving state and that is where your negotiation skills come into action now negotiation you are not really a negotiator when you are a mediator you are not really a negotiator but you are a mere facilitator of negotiation so in order to be a facilitator of negotiation you have to understand what is the negotiating style that is being adopted by the parties because you are facilitating the negotiation now somebody might be a very competitive person very aggressive very adversarial now how do you balance that with the other parties accommodating style with the other parties avoiding style or the other parties compromising style how do you bring them to a level where they start collaborating with each other now if I have to go into that the time allotted by you will not be enough it will become a full-fledged training session so all I am trying to tell you here is there is a slight difference between what we do as lawyers and what we do as mediators and that difference was clearly pointed out by Mr. Chandyok also and Mr. Chandyok also said that even as lawyers even as advocates you need to have those listening skills because when you are dealing with your client if you are going to do inactive listening you are diluting your client's cause you are not really doing justice to your client so whether you are see you may be playing the role of a mediation advocate also so even when you come in a mediation as a mediation advocate not as a mediator before you walk into the mediation room you ought to know what exactly your client feels about this matter and without knowing that if you are going to assist your client in the mediation you are not going to be doing justice to your client so therefore whether you are an advocate or a mediator or a husband or a father or a wife or a sister or a brother or a daughter or son whatever you might be you need to be a good listener so with that I will just stop here because people might have some questions and we also are very eager to listen to what JP has to say because Chandi Yoke like you converted into this thing during the holy days we got a lot of messages Mr. Chandi Yoke you can unmute yourself sir in that case a lot of messages came into being in Punjabi they say holy means slow so they say the happy was driving a scooter very fast so he was said happy holy happy holy so he said that probably he is being wished for the happy and he bashed into the vehicle and it said it was not happy holy it was happy holy chla that was quite slow so that is why they say that why it is necessary to understand the import of what has been said you shouldn't like what Mr. Chandi Yoke said that we shouldn't go by preconceived notions to any aspects and as Mr. Jawadar said we have the same and we will have his inputs and he is an excellent lawyer as well as a mediator so we have heard one side as to what is the source skill for mediation and what is the source skill for this thing so I can say it may not be a fit and substance or what they have said across but in his own style he will create his own niche I will ask Mr. Singh to give his inputs in a short and twist manner in the way always he does so kindly unmute yourself Mr. Singh sorry yeah I think there was some logging issues trying to log in yeah Mr. Singh thank you because there is something I would like to as I said Mr. Chandi Yoke was speaking my biggest takeaway today was enjoy what you do and when I say you enjoy is something which you do with passion passion brings in persistence passion brings in patience passion brings in persuasion so these are these are three very very important things which are required in case if you want to succeed Jawad give us an acronym I am also very fond of acronym his arm was a little they said when we talk of humor Mr. Krishna Murthy a small child in school was asked by the teacher what is the spelling of banana and he said and he said Mr. Krishna Murthy stop your banana is too long and Jawad's when he said arm he gave you arm arm was a little too long than the army party because it was argue analyze advice and minimize so you had larger a bigger arm that was for inattentive listening now let me give you an acronym for attentive listening that is r-a-s-a r-a-s-a you may call it but when we pronounce it it is russ so arm's russ arm was inattentive listening russ is attentive listening now what is r? r is receive you know you receive information what is being said to you a is acknowledge you know you say uh huh yes so that's what you mean you know this is where you acknowledge s stands for summarize summarize when you summarize the person feels heard understood you understood what he's saying you know you summarize back to him okay this is what you wanted to say and a stands for ask ask questions to clarify ask questions to minimize information that you received so that the important information that he wanted to convey to you is brought on the table so when jawad gave us arm let me give you the russ I thought like you know when we talk of attentive listening and uh so uh because thank you so much you know for giving us this occasion to hear these two stalwarts I mean I have no words for Mr. Chandio I mean uh I mean it's like rightly said that you know you want to show lamp to a sun I mean we cannot uh actually describe what he is in terms of when we talk of advocacy skills or persona that he is already created for himself in no way that we can so therefore it was wonderful hearing him you know and I always love hearing him whenever whenever he wants to you know when he gives us these anecdotes or when he gives us this little piece of information that transpired in court of course jawad I have you know really started loving him for his you know passion for mediation and the kind of work that he is doing and uh I mean the information whenever I have heard him I have heard something more to my vocabulary and this is something which I you know I am going to carry away when he talks of trainings I am sure somewhere when he talks of arm I will give him the rest thank you so much because thank you thank you again you know because sorry just just one minute you know that that is the magic of uh being with people like JP and Chandiof sir because you keep learning this arm rest the way he brought out the connection amazing he made the arm much sweeter by giving us the rest and I will just share one small joke about Mirza Khalib I hope you are not running out of time Mirza Khalib was very fond of mangoes okay so one day he was sitting and one of his friends used to hate mangoes so one day he was sitting and having mangoes with a group of friends that this friend came there and he was sitting Khalib offered him the mango and he said no I don't want to eat that and then they were throwing away the peels and the donkey was walking that side and the donkey stopped, sniffed the peels decided not to eat them and walk away so the friend took advantage of that and wanted to take a dig at Mirza Khalib and he said so Khalib replied so Khalib replied so Khalib replied I will just chip in like what he said that he will give you the rest it's the same way they say a good listener what Mr. Seen is he has showed one thing that he himself is a very good avid speaker having good knowledge on the advocacy front as well as on the mediation he said just like what listen and silent are the same words same is the russ and saar are the same words so he has given the russ as well as the saar of the entire webinar in a perfect manner so I can say this perfectly and I am just reminded as they say they are too heavy on the top whether they have to pitch in Shekhar Dhawan they have to pitch in Rohit Sharma Virat Kohli Sky what we call as Shiv Kumar Yadav or Ishin Kumar same is when you are having three speakers of immense knowledge it's very difficult to say as to say that who is leading the front actually whoever comes in he chips in in such a way that you are just mesmerized you are just like a pipe you are not though we are quite sure that we are not going into the well we are going into the ocean of deep knowledge and since there is only one question as such has come I have asked and that which is very general one this is by Mr. Lal Tejwani Mr. Jawad how do we listen to silence communication by remaining silent okay in our mediation the way we conduct mediation when we talk of active listening silence is a very important part of active listening because silence becomes necessary when supposing a party is trying to collect their thoughts they want to recollect whatever they want to say and at that time you keep pushing them forward you keep interrupting their thoughts and you keep telling them yes tell me you try to rush them then they get disoriented so we always say that in the midst of talking it could be for two reasons one the the talking part of it has really affected the party so much that the party has become emotional so you observe that and you respect that emotion and you allow the party to recover from that emotion by pausing there and not pushing the party forward or you allow the party to collect their thoughts so silence is an integral part of active listening so when to observe that silence and when to listen silently to the party is something very important and that's where you're supposing when the party is talking you don't keep interrupting and asking questions it's only at a particular stage that you stop the person and ask a question if you want a clarification but you don't keep interrupting them all the time so you but you demonstrate the listening by nodding your head so that's where your body language plays a very important role you're silent but through your body language you're showing the person that Sir, Jadav sir you want to say something about No, I am saying that listening in any event when your body language could also be even without nodding your head sometimes you can convey much more I mean when you are in especially in part of advocacy you may normally nod our heads only because to tell the judge that we are listening to him but we are actually not listening to him also the fact of the matter is we are never listening to him and that's where you brought that great distinction of hearing and listening therefore it's time that not only in mediation I think it's time that we must start listening to the matters now and therefore it will be a much more contribution to the cause of justice if we start listening to it I am not wanting judge to become emotional to what the party's emotions are because emotions have no place in judicial dispensation but if you listen then you are listening to the inner depth of that problem you are not listening on the surface listening would make you go into deep root into the question that you are and that's where we are saying you need to settle the law because when you listen you will decide something which will actually settle down the law which will not go in the last I give this jawat too many times I think in 1990 or 1991 decision on specific performance the same judge gives six judgments and all six are different Supreme God therefore you need to tell if you are on the top you need to convey to the right into rank and file what actually is the law how will you interpret it because your unsettling situation does not leave people to give advice you will resolve many disputes in fact one of the reasons of nothing to do with this but I can make that as an example people say those 12 cases that were sent by RBI to insolvency created so much of time lines were not made but we are not looking at it the Justice Nariman's five decisions one by filmmaker one by Justice Chandrachut all those six seven decisions if you see the streamline they have done to the law look at number of judicial time that we have saved so don't look at that because that take case took longer because that time evolving law will always take longer but if it has clear down the deck it has told you what clearly is to be what clean slate has to be what you should work on those must be added to it I mean I still feel we all say our courts are overcrowded but I take it very positively should we not all Indians be proud of the fact that still not withstanding all what we are seeing rule of law still plays a pivotal role in the life of people and they still knock at the door of the court and I think that's a proud moment for this country to look at it that not withstanding that I know I am going to take ten years and I keep saying this Jawad to people that we need to strengthen our judicial system by bringing if you have to bring some commercial matter you put JP as a judge you put Jawad as a judge you put Vikas as a judge you will see it will probably take half the time now you rightly said today the judge doesn't know what trial is unfortunately because of the representation that we give to each states in the supreme court I don't think and I only want to end with one sentence if you all I don't know how many of you will remember there used to be an Akali leader I think he cast me a no master Tara Singh he went to Pandit Nehru and said look we are six are part of India but so many years have gone down the drain not a single judge to the supreme court of Sikh community Prime minister said I have not got any I never got any recommendation I would have definitely looked at it but I will speak to Chief Justice of India as an opportunity comes so when he meets Chief Justice of India somewhere he mentions it to it you know what the Chief Justice says honorable prime minister it is supreme court of India it's not a zoo where I must keep all species I need that courage from the supreme court today we will be able to dispense justice not anything else it is nothing to do with therefore I said we must forget this caste color and creed we must come as fraternity and if we come as fraternity as one we have done our job for our generations to come we will not get all this situation that we are facing today this question is by Raja Rameez to Mr. Chindio if a lawyer appears before a trial court in a particular case and despite convincing the honorable judge is still awarded an adverse order then how is this sort of skill will be helpful before vision or where he wishes to save the same without getting a single observation by the applet court judge because of the situation but loves the disposal of the judge in a nutshell let me give you an answer to Rameez that I think you will be able to appreciate it better than I will give you an example of it probably will answer your question I had a Chief Justice who ultimately became a Chief Justice Justice Tata Chari a very eminent judge he heard a matter and pronounced the judgment and noted the contentions but did not play did not decide them did not say anything about it so I came with the review before him his lordship to say I said this my lordship had noted that para 20 this para 10 this but you have not decided it so he says this review comes up before his lordship and he says adjourn it to a date so he sensed for me he calls me in his chamber and says young man when you tell the judge that you are a fool or you did not understand me do not tell him so well you say my lord I could not help to your lordships as to in the what was my contention and therefore my lord were not able to appreciate it in the judgment I need this review thereof I filed a fresh review and Devad say I still remember it as if it was yesterday his lordship dismissed the first application as not pressed with liberty to issue a new one he should notice state his own judgment now that's the caliber of a judge that's your soft skill that you develop over time now these are the skills don't worry about that the judge is not understood and how do you do it you don't lose yourself let him lose himself you don't lose it and I can assure you give you one more example I know because must be saying I am speaking too much you know a case I don't know whether JP would remember it or not I don't know whether it's there or not a question I don't know any one of you you know it has ground floor or paranthawalas who are selling pranthas and first floor people live so we filed a suit in district court saying that this whole heat comes to me it's nuisance and health result do suit dismissed first appeal dismissed we are in second appeal before the high court and I come in so I was telling that what is the question of law in section 100 I have to bring the matter gets adjourned from two judges and comes before just TPS Chawla and I tell this but my client look boss no chance Chawla is going to dismiss in two minutes now I stand up and say lord is my health not part of article 21 now look at this if it is your lordships have said that then the fact that this fire which is on the ground floor is a haphazard for me and my health is that not a question of law for your lordship to consider and here it is three questions of law are framed and injunction is granted can you ever believe that two judges two courts below have dismissed your motions you are in section 100 and question of law on article 21 is there nothing to do with the suit I am not in a rude court but yes it gets framed it strikes the judge so therefore what I was saying was communication becomes important what you communicate becomes important you must strike at that person what he would like so if you communicated it you succeeded so don't get this heart and remains by fact that he did not notice you I am sure you don't lose yourself and you will actually succeed I am sure one day now that Vikash with your permission can I just rather I will seek permission from you sorry the first example that I make note that Chandri Sahib said reminded me of my junior days when I was a raw junior I was arguing my one matter before Madras High Court yet said something and I said with respect my lord immediately the judge glared at me through the papers and said go call your senior then I went and told my senior he said what happened I said with respect my lord I was about to tell him and he just threw the papers and said to call you so he said alright he posted it in the afternoon but come sit down let me tell you something so he said see when you say with respect my lord it means the lordship is wrong if you say with great respect my lord it means your lordship is absolutely wrong if you say with utmost respect my lord it means your lordship belongs to the lunatic asylum so never never use that again he said so from that day I stopped using that with respect with great respect with utmost respect I was on the bar council but see you have the change in life today as supreme court chief justice says how do you call me my honor not my lord did the change did the change today the chief justice of India he should have said no I don't need honor also you may call me by my name as long as you are making a point for me to dispense justice I think the bar council of India has told that I mean there is a circle also yes that's right but the chief justice of India is saying that why you call me my honor I don't know I don't think he abused the chief justice of India and he just struck me and I thought I must share that with you I was speaking at Lincoln's in London and a question was put to me after I spoke that why after so much of independence you still call your judges my lord no it is non plus question which probably I thought I don't know whether what to answer but I don't know God gave me something to answer so I said actually speaking it's not copying United Kingdom because in my country I only feel there is one God and only God can do justice that is my lord so actually I am reminding that judge when I call him my lord Britishers have copied us saying that you have given this opportunity I will judge to do justice which God himself can do please be reminded in this case you are ought to but I don't know and you know people thought I had said something great and got lost it is a very profound explanation that you have given so therefore we are not supposed to look at this these are small things we should that's where the you know the listening part comes in I must listen to his substance what he is saying not that he did not call me a senior advocate or said sir even if you did not say sir but still made a point which requires my attention that I must give attention to that sentence rather than calling me hello sir and say nothing after that that's where we need the truth of the people today in the court whether we are lawyers or judges makes no difference but having said that I still feel the Indian judiciary has played a paramount role we must be glad they are playing their role they will continue to play that role and only if we were to bring our strength back both at bar and the bench oh I don't think this country would need anybody then I am not scared of anybody then all those messages that every day come when groups will not come oh I need to strengthen this bar and when you strengthen the bar you will strengthen the bench when you strengthen the bench the combination I can tell you the combination of bench and bar together can do miracles miracles just miracles which we probably our youngsters can't even think of you would have not seen these developments but for both see the latest part I must give you this example in administrative side the court passes an order the matter is challenged goes to the judicial side judicial side makes it worse it goes to supreme court look at the human of the judge he says these are not matters on the judicial side we must go back to the administrative side to resolve so he is not set aside the order yet he has set aside the order now this is the human that I need today you are this is the communication you are actually not set aside that order yet you are set please go to the administrative side these are all administrative matters whether you should have hybrid whether you should have VC whether you should have physical all is administrative please go there justice please look into it that's all so he is actually done away with all those remarks in one sentence only therefore this is what we need today and that's where we need I think we stop looking at these blocks and these things that this is we need to go back to what we need to look at and that's what what is important for us and if everybody was to share what one possesses everybody can't possess everything but whatever little one possesses one is ready to share therefore time has come when our children must read our youngsters must read our past who will go to Palki Vela to read what he has said only if you remember what he has argued in the court that you will make a distinction of what he does look at me as a lawyer don't look at what can tension be raised or did not raise what did he do how did he evolve that basic structure of constitution by just some submissions therefore we need to develop that soft skill how do I submit that to the court how do I communicate to the court that becomes important thank you yeah Mr. Jawad yeah because well I have nothing more to add except that I just want to ask Mr. Chandyok is it because we are becoming small as men and our egos are becoming bigger that we see a lot of things happening like this because those days we recall those glorious days when we used to have those exchanges across the bar when lawyers could speak up to the judges and point out any mistakes to them we have heard we grew up on those stories actually of Fali Nariman and Jee Ramaswamy and the exchanges with some of the judges like this is Bharucha and what kind of exchanges they had what kind of humor was being used in those days and how the those seniors used to talk to the judges also and point out to them how they were wrong in a very subtle and humorous way we find that tolerance from the other side is also becoming lesser and lesser today because it's not my place to say it I'm too small to say that but I'm just because the platform has been provided and you are there and you have pointed out to certain things I'm getting the guts to say that is it because we as people are getting transformed into less as people and more as egoistic beings or whatever Jawad I think we are becoming more materialistic for me my relationship with my own court I'm not talking about a judge with my court was important my commitment to that cause was important I was being groomed to become a part of an institution I was not becoming was grown being groomed to become known to A, B or C therefore that relationship with the institution is missing today if I was to bring that institution as paramount and not as paramount things will change therefore even if the chief justice was to say that in the supreme court we should make it there was a way to tell him Justice Deepak Mishra at that time was a junior judge sitting with Justice Dawe and we start the matter at 10 40 Mr. Jait Malani opposing us at 12 o'clock we get the order through Justice Deepak Mishra says Mr. Chandigarh look at the watch you are lucky today now look at this I was very lucky right in the morning this is how I said I am in court number 12 he was pointing out 12 o'clock to me as a sererji but I gave him back in a way that was deserving of him that I am in court 12 I was lucky because I came in court 12 not because the clock is saying 12 there was a laughter for 15 minutes Justice Dawe even now in arbitration told me that I can't forget that incident these are things that should bring back to court therefore I said your happiness is important what is important is you are able to convey with the sense of sensitivity yet with command no doubt but at the same time don't lose yourself no not egoist you see look at this part I would have thrown back to him said that I am only a 6 therefore you are saying 12 o'clock I could have reacted but the way I reacted he didn't expect that he didn't realize that he was sitting in court number 12 so there was laughter and if you become a source of happiness or laughter for 50 people sitting in court I think you are blessed by God absolutely blessed by God nothing is going to happen to me but well nothing happened at that time also but yes this way you take it therefore that as you word you tolerance I must have that tolerance within me to appreciate something good in it why always negative therefore once I find that Javed has 10 good things he has 2 bad things I forget those 2 adopt those 10 and those 10 would become my 2 added to it 12 for me or 15 for me why not do that but I will not do that I will forget those 10 those 2 and I personally feel Javed that I don't think anybody can give me brief he alone can give me because if he has given me that I have to take in this month home 10 lakhs or rupees some source will come to me to give me the 10 lakhs whether I give opinion only I will get 10 lakhs but if nothing is to come to me then nothing is going to grow that we need to enjoy what we are doing and have faith in him he is after all a creator science may have developed anything we have gone computerized we have got online we have made artificial intelligence is coming but how will you artificial intelligence give you a submission evolving a law it will never be able to do it it can sort out facts for you yes possible 4,000 pages it may give you 400 pages possible but that will not help you therefore I need to evolve something and that evolution will only come when you start thinking something new JP just now gave a compliment to you Javed saying every time I hear you you add something else to it so there is alphabet A to Z remain the same but you add A plus A plus plus B plus B plus plus so you are adding to the vocabulary it is only possible when I am thinking innovatively when I am thinking what can I argue something new when can I resolve this matter with something fresh how will I empower parties I am not empowering parties in adjudicator system in court I am empowering parties and that is why I keep saying that we have done away with conciliation after Ancetral has changed its model law it substituted it to mediation please don't become evaluative I am not saying you can't suggest if something is patently wrong you can always say please go home and Mr. council please look at section 23 you might come back to me with something else possible I am not saying that it is possible you are again empowering him you are not empowering yourself you are not giving any suggestion you are not evaluating his evidence you are nobody in the caucus you might be able to talk to him he might give you confidentially what he thinks but that is something totally different there is a principle it is a structured process we all start feeling yes yes yes we can all do but it is a structured process and with the development of law that is taking place we need to structure it further and I can't structure it further only by giving those two instances I will have to restructure the whole thing to understand it evolve it both in the court there is something totally new coming today how many people will be able to make a distinction in the CPC which has been amended by the commercial courts act why is the judges not saying 12A means 12A please go to mediation even if you have two sittings come back to me let me see where you do maybe you are able to resolve 5 out of 10 points you are left with 5 to decide now that is where I need the bench to come back to us felicitate this position ask the parties even if you settle 2 it doesn't matter go and resolve it too we will decide the remaining and with the amendment to order 15 nobody is looking at it you have been given in power not 126 15 says you will pass a decree so the process is only to minimize to find solutions to the problems not resolutions resolution is now IBC's prerogative we restructure the resolution here we find solutions so even if as a council why can't I go back to you are talking about ego what prevents me because I am scared if I go to Jawad and tell him I can ask my client to settle with you you will not agree and you will press in court you called me up to say these 2 can be decided my lord so you are embarrassing the council don't do that please develop this system as part of your advocacy to resolve to find solutions to the problems if you can find solutions to a part of it also your judicial system will go multiply and people are today looking at India if we strengthen this system we will do a job which will help you both economically and otherwise you will rise you don't need to look at World Bank or something to give you statistics people will recognize you people will come to Indian court to say no I want to knock at this door they will forget London and forget Singapore please make that and look at the development Singapore is doing it started with arbitration it went to mediation it went to intellectual properties it creates a commercial court bring it there tell Justice Sikri please come and join me after the supreme court of India only because he wants to utilize the acumen of the person for the furtherance of what justice I think this is something we owe to the future generations yes we owe it I don't know why disputes between families dispute between persons why should the courts spend their so much valuable time where they can be focusing more on social justice issues there are so many marginalized people in our country people who are economically deprived socially deprived why can't we do justice to them the courts can focus on that and allow the parties to resolve their disputes between themselves most of the time is spent resolving disputes between Cyrus Mistry and Ratan Tata after Mistry Mistry I said I don't want to go back where was the need for the supreme court to say all this has it not wasted time he made a statement I don't want to go back the question which you still left open you said I can't decide the evaluation then what have you decided yes sir Sheela ji you should say something Sheela ji is not putting a question to me I am asking her to put a question we are unmuting we are unmuting and meanwhile as you said yesterday only after her judgment my neighbour sent me a message that the judgments are so well written and amount of energy and the way we all believe it's another issue we all believe it's another source where we get inspiration where a lot of judgments are actually in the right perspective he said that though we have always read that big men small egos but normally the judgments and the judges are really large hearted and same is like Mr. Chandiyoak or any other lawyer who actually gives the insights and ways said that when the lawyer was on the tricky side but he helped him to sail through and these small soft skills which we have learnt though we cannot say learn but as we say from the famous movie dialogue this is my friend's trailer and once you have people like Mr. Jawad, Mr. Chandiyoak Mr. Sain and all those participants only on our YouTube, Facebook and on this platform you can only learn and learn as someone has posted the message that I wish just it could continue but I say that his wish may not translate today I can say that yes the wish would be that it would be divided into parts and we are always they say you cannot have more than two or three chapatis in a day it's always better to chew what you can actually chew well so let's chew only for this so that for the next webinar when we connect back as we all are connected from different platforms Jawad from down south Madras myself from Chandigarh and Mr. Chandiyoak from Delhi and Mr. Sain from Chandigarh and the message I have received that today's chapatis too good I will say it was not a chapati but it was a full flesh full cost meal so we will keep on enjoying we will stay connected with it you can put it as an Afghani naan but still the naan can have some damages of the maida we had a very sumptuous food which will be cherished for all times to come thank you so much thank you so much thank you stay blessed and we will connect soon