 So we're taking back to what I was saying, for a young lawyer and for a very young lawyer like me, how do you say that, how should one develop the art of critical thinking of a judgment? See, critical thinking is something not only for life, for everybody. We should stop accepting a thing that's correct. Without posing this question to ourselves, let me test this conclusion. Suppose Supreme Court in a given case draws some conclusions. The critical way to test the correctness is whether something else could not have been the correct answer because judges have some limitations. Of course, that also has been given up in the journal thing too. They are bound to follow larger business. Whereas an advocate is not bound to respect any decision. He is kindly remembered this power. He is the only citizen in this country who has power to criticize that. But within certain norms. When we realize that we are more powerful than judges because the high court judge cannot comment on Supreme Court judgment. Whereas a high court advocate can say that please do not follow it is wrong. First and foremost, advocate whether a young or old should realize he is the most powerful person in dispensation of justice. Remember another thing, if we do not criticize, if we do not propound an alternate viewpoint, law would not have developed. Constitution would not have become such a vibrant document. But for you and me, you and me means every advocate who lives the life of an advocate. Who has the fearlessness of the advocate. And who remembers that he is the person making the law. Neither the parliament nor the judges. Because judgment is rendered on the assistance given by advocates. It is initiative to propound an alternate viewpoint should emanate from the advocate. He is the moving force. If you read Parasit state and say that this is the law laid on the rocks. And if the opposite, if it is convenient to me, I may read that judgment. My opponent should say that Parasit state is contrary to Ajit Singh too. Only then law will develop. Somebody has to point out. Object of the judgment is to see that settled things are not unsettled. Look what is the unsettling effect it has brought. Then pursue that. Hold it per inferior or refer to a larger thing. It is not that advocates are only like any other actor in the system of duty justice dispensation. I would say advocates are number one and most critical part of justice delivery system. In courts of law, we only call the judges as lords. Only we are called as learned advocates. That learning should be coupled with courage. Courage to test is what is required. Once you have the courage to test, courage the mind to analyze will open up. Not the tincture intellectually we are shrunk. Intellect refuses to blossom more out of our fear. Overcome the fear where they had this health so high. Go back to that tradition. I may not say that every finding is wrong. Apart from the case we handle, apart from thinking whether this argument fits into my case. Think as an independent person of law that there can be a better view of things. Of course, don't propagate that better view in the court if it is against you. Wait for a proper just to propagate that better view. Like otherwise what happens? I appear for the defense in a dismissal case of an employee and say that well what's for the misconduct he has committed. This appears to be correct punishment. If I say that whom am I defending? I'm not defending anybody. Therefore, you should have the courage to argue an unpopular argument or an argument which others may find it will not be accepted. With the confidence that one day you will make it acceptable. One day you will make it acceptable. That is the confidence which you have to make. It is confidence which creates creativity. And I am having abundant confidence in particularly younger advocates, not as young as because little more younger or little less younger than him. They have where we thought to analyze and come up with massive submissions which people of our age would never have thought of it. With every new advocate entering the profession, I feel that a new dynamite of thinking is added to the only thing is our thinking capacity is shrunk by our fears. So if I have to answer the question of because, be bold. If you are destined to lose, you will lose the case. But you would still have made some minds start thinking that your viewpoint will be correct and the judgment will be wrong. Have I answered with us? I have understood the what we always hear about that it is how you think about the prism or what we say that whether it is a half glass empty or half glass full. The spirit and the contribution and that spirit to move on that these glasses full. And if you are representing the other side, you can always say it's half glass empty. Yes. So it's the reflection and what Shakespeare said that nothing is good or bad, but your thinking makes it so or your company makes it so. And you're also demonstrated that it is only the expensive of the mind. The flag continues to remain the same, but once it is a flower, it's a flower, but once it's a cauliflower, it's entirely different. So, in fact, the way you expounded the theory, the way you told us on various sessions, sometimes I feel that we should just have a Q&A form where we understand. How to take what I was the next question I can I will not be taking two, three questions which have come on the platform, because I feel that if the youngsters can be or for that matter any part of the society can be in charge. Like these are 400 pages that now these are 68 pages running. How do you go that extensive study, despite the fact you are so busy or for that matter any good lawyer, they say what the difference between the lawyer and the senior lawyer is that. Ordinary and the extraordinary effort and you're told that your extraordinary thinking should be there. And that hunger to actually achieve better things what other people didn't have the twist of thinking. So how do you develop that art, like reading 300 pages in a day you are also hard pressed for that matter for any profession who is working on how to build that reading habit of understanding the things from 300 pages, you see about the things. As they say that in the diamond the cream comes from the top. So how do you bring the cream out of that entire judgment or any. I do not have any. I'm saying in general I'm not saying. Generally. I know that you can do that. You whip the cream out of the diamond. One one important aspect of reading the judgment is. We should not read head notes. To the extent possible. Now we have the success to internet where if a judgment is transfer today. Tomorrow it will be on a CC online. Without head note. Today itself you can get on live law or today itself you can get on the SCC website itself that is. Before they are head noted. Read the judgment. Because you will be reading the textbook judgment without head note is the textbook judgments had noted. You know the difference between 30 questions lawyer and a textbook. Therefore I would like I would prefer to read. Particularly this. Present situation of COVID for the last two years or slightly more. It has given. This access and time to read. Unheard noted. If you read unheard noted judgments. You are understanding of the judgment will be much better because. There will be nobody to guide you go to this paragraph. This is what it is said. For example, these head notes can be so confusing and so misleading. PR Ramakrishna or something like that one judgment is there. It was one of the parties was National Taxile Corporation. The question of rights of. Workmen came. Is discussed there in a winding up proceedings. What is the right of a workman trade union to participate. Head note says that. If a right is not denied to a workman by law. It is granting that rate. I relied on that head note and succeeded also in my case. Then I wonder I love. Let me see where is that paragraph. There is nothing even closer to that head note in the entire judgment. And you will be aghast. The judgment was upheld by Supreme Court also which I read that had not here and succeeded. It was upheld by Supreme Court. Therefore first thing is. We are all beyond 18 years. We are majors. I am closer to even. I am beyond 70 also that is it. Let us learn to read without a guide. At the high school level. Guided teaching should be over. If our advocates develop. Reading the judgment in full. Cover it or. Without looking at the head notes. We will be a better one. But ignoring the head notes is difficult because. Shortcut is always attractive. And. We pretend we have no time to read the full judgment. Tell me. Which is the paragraph I have to go. You go under the fault. Therefore now that we have access to. Unheard noted judgments. Read those judgments. Then if you want to see whether your understanding is correct. Or if you have missed any point. Then you go to SCC. Unfortunately this. SCC head noting. Yes it is good. But it has killed our. Instinctive understanding of the. Having a guide is. Sometimes. A decent sense of. Learning. And. Reading 60 30 60 paragraphs or 70 paragraphs is not something. Difficult. Yes if it is something beyond 100 paragraphs. We will have to be reading it like a single. And that becomes difficult unless you want to. Unless there is a pressing case where you have to rely on that. You will not be reading. But up to 100 paragraphs. Reading. Easy easy. If you avoid reading. That is how I have. Developed morning that. After reading the headlines in the newspapers. Newspapers I read on the. But judgments I ignore headlines and read. Report. Has it is. I have to make a draw a distinction where to read. Where to headlines and where to read. Substance. Always read. Substance and not. It is time consuming. Yes. If you don't read what else we are doing. Advocates are doing only two things. Reading and talking. Talking and how we do. Talking clear preparation is reading. So you have actually explained that. Reading the head notes would be putting like the cart before the horse. So you should always put the. After the cart. And unfilled. Even otherwise they say that. Even in the nowadays. Cameras your children also tell. That it's a filtered photograph or an unfiltered photographs. So you say that the best way to understand things are to. Have the unfiltered view. And then go by the art of filtration. And that's what they say that even for the becoming any good thing. You have to understand the art of pyramid. The way you're. From your home you start with a solid base. And by the end of the day. The best things come forward. And as you rightly explained that even the boat. Goes through the week. I use distance. If you pull it back and then push it forward. So thank you. So it has always been an enlightening session. And be that as it may. I take the commitment that we will have the. Art of advocacy or reading etc. From you. Now this thing at least I can take. I've been able to. Bouch upon that fact that whenever we have been made a. Request you have always been kind enough. To make us understand the things. And before we part for today. Tomorrow the session would be part of the just rate to direct. Investigations under the section 156. Three CRPC. To have a different prisms in a different perspective. Every lawyer has as. Mr. P.S. Raju Gopal has made us understand. So he's by C.S. Manishankar. A senior advocate from Madras cycle. And as I said that. Everything is. Nothing is permanent except the change. And that's what we have all understood from him. Whatever we have understood today. Thank you everyone. Stay blessed. Stay safe. Thank you very much.