Lawyers' boycott and the accused persons’ right to be defended in court

While ANHAD's Report and other events raise concern about release of Muslim youths wrongfully detained in the police custody in relation to alleged acts of terrorism, a cognate issue that should not be missed is that of access to sound legal advice at the appropriate time. 

Some bar associations (such as that of Pune and  Faizabad) have passed resolutions to not defend any person accused of terrorist acts, it particularly affects minorities as they are 'labelled' as terrorists. Some lawyers who withstood by the ethics of the legal profession in such hard times had also filed writ petitions in before the High Court challenging such resolutions passed by the bar association. However, a recent decision passed by the Supreme Court is instructive on this point.

 In A.S. Mohammad Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2011 SC 308, the Supreme Court of India observed that “several Bar Associations all over India… have passed resolutions that they will not defend a particular person or persons in a particular criminal case… Sometimes the Bar Associations passes a resolution that they will not defend  a person who is alleged to be a terrorist or a person accused of a brutal or heinous crime or involved in a rape case...” . Further that “such resolutions are wholly illegal, against all traditions of the bar, and against professional ethics. Every person, however, wicked, depraved, vile, degenerate, vicious or repulsive he may be regarded by society has a right to be defended in a court of law and correspondingly it is the duty of the lawyer to defend him.”

Resolutions similar to the resolution of the Coimbatore Bar Association are known to have been passed by the Bar Association of Faizabad and apparently also by the Bar Association of Pune that prevented the alleged ‘terrorists’ from having any legal representations. The impact of absence of effective legal representation and denial of right to have a counsel of one’s choice would probably be assessed when these cases reach the appellate stage. One can hope that decision would be handy in at least ensuring persons branded as terrorist merely by virtue of their religious and social association have access to a lawyer.

I have commented on this aspect earlier and at length on the Law and Other Things which is available here and more recently here.