The defense lawyer who represented the pampered terrorist murder from Pakistan who killed numerous innocent people in Mumbai’s terror attacks was recently removed by the Judge for delaying the trail and thereby obstructing justice. He cannot be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, because there is no law that legal professionals must speed up completion of the cases in which they are involved. The defense lawyer has also accused in public that the prosecution lawyer had insulted him and humiliated him in the court by referring him as the “terrorist’s lawyer” on one occasion in the court. In this context, one should evaluate Kazmi’s work in the course of his representation of this criminal. He never missed an opportunity to delay the trail. He never cooperated with the court. One with common sense knows that his primary motivation for accepting the assignment was to increase his visibility and to acquire the status as the defender of a Muslim hero who is being tried in a Hindu court for what is to be considered the “duty of the accused according to his religious teachings.” In other words, he was like a player who played to shoot in to his own goal and sought opportunities to pass the ball to his opponents.

He had a duty to cooperate with the Court and ensure a speedy trail. When the court which appointed him noted that he was not cooperating and, therefore, removed him for lack of integrity. His law degree could not hide his cynical belief that he was defending a Muslim in a Hindu court and that he had a “right to win” even if by obstructing the trial. He seemed to disregard the fact that he was not being paid a ton of money to defend “Mother Terressa,” and that nowhere else, but in India would a killer of numerous innocent people, in front of numerous witnesses, get such a trail. Lawyers do dig at each other during trail. The judge usually orders to strike off inappropriate remarks, and out of context information presented in the court. When layers continue the practice, the Judge warns them in the court or calls them to the chamber to admonish them. Lawyers are not unfamiliar with incidents of some of their colleagues being barred from a court for repeatedly disregarding the court procedures or disregarding the Bench. Therefore, Kazmi’s lamentation is similar to that of a ball player who was taken out of the team for shooting into his own goal post or for repeatedly passing the ball to his opponents in the field.

It is common knowledge that Kazmi will be a celebrity in the Islamic world for defending the Islamic hero against Hindus in a Hindu court. Needless to say, honors and expensive gifts await him when he tours into Islamic countries. For that, it was not necessary for him to win, but he had to stay in the race and get to the finishing line. Now he, having been so removed, he is out of the loop. He probably did not expect the Judge to go to that extent. Now, the only way he can remain in the limelight and remain associated with the trail, the terrorist murderer and the cause of Jihad is by complaining ill treatment and humiliation by the Hindu prosecutor in the Hindu court and by his illegal removal by the Judge in the Hindu court. Even then, he missed the coveted prize. It is a pit that Kazmi “lost a Kingdom for want of a horseshoe!”