A.S. Mohammed Rafi vs. State of Tamil Nadu; 2015 (319) ELT 10 (SC)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing a matter, commented upon a matter of great legal and constitutional importance.
The Hon’ble Court observed that the Bar Association of Coimbatore had passed a resolution that no member of the Coimbatore Bar could defend the accused policemen in the criminal case against them in this case. Several Bar Association all over India, whether High Court Bar Associations or District Court Bar Associations have passed resolutions that they could not defend a particular person or persons in a particular criminal case. Sometimes there were clashes between policemen and lawyers, and the Bar Association passes a resolution that no one will defend the policemen in the criminal case in court. Similarly, sometimes the Bar Association passed a resolution that they would 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.
The Hon’ble Court opined that such resolutions are wholly illegal, against all traditions of the bar, and against professional ethics. Every person, however, wicked, depraved, vile, degenerate, perverted, loathsome, execrable, 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.
The Hon’ble Court gave some historical examples in this connection. When the great revolutionary writer Thomas Paine was jailed and tried for treason in England in 1792 for writing his famous pamphlet ‘The Rights of Man’ in defence of the French Revolution the great advocate Thomas Erskine (1750-1823) was briefed to defend him. Erskine was at that time the Attorney General for the Prince of Wales and he was warned that if he accepted the brief, he would be dismissed from office. Undeterred, Erskine accepted the brief and was dismissed from office.
However, his immortal words in this connection stand out as a shining light even today :
“From the moment that any advocate can be permitted to say that he will or will not stand between the Crown and the subject arraigned in court where he daily sits to practice, from that moment the liberties of England are at an end. If the advocate refuses to defend from what he may think of the charge or of the defence, he assumes the character of the Judge; nay he assumes it before the hour of the judgment; and in proportion to his rank and reputation puts the heavy influence of perhaps a mistaken opinion into the scale against the accused in whose favour the benevolent principles of English law make all assumptions, and which commands the very Judge to be his Counsel”
The Hon’ble Court observed that Indian lawyers have followed this great tradition. The revolutionaries in Bengal during British rule were defended by our lawyers, the Indian communists were defended in the Meerut conspiracy case, Razakars of Hyderabad were defended by our lawyers, Sheikh Abdulah and his co-accused were defended by them, and so were some of the alleged assassins of Mahatma Gandhi and Indira Gandhi. In recent times, Dr. Binayak Sen has been defended. No Indian lawyer of repute has ever shirked the responsibility on the ground that it will make him unpopular or that it is personally dangerous for him to do so. It was in this great tradition that the eminent Bombay High Court lawyer Bhulabhai Desai defended the accused in the I.N.A. trials in the Red Fort at Delhi (November 1945 – May 1946).
However, disturbing news was coming now from several parts of the country where bar associations were refusing to defend certain accused persons.
The Hon’ble Court observed that professional ethics requires that a lawyer cannot refuse a brief, provided a client is willing to pay his fee, and the lawyer is not otherwise engaged. Hence, the action of any Bar Association in passing such a resolution that none of its members will appear for a particular accused, whether on the ground that he is a policeman or on the ground that he is a suspected terrorist, rapist, mass murderer, etc. is against all norms of the Constitution, the Statute and professional ethics. It is against the great traditions of the Bar which has always stood up for defending persons accused for a crime. Such a resolution was, in fact, a disgrace to the legal community. The Court held that all such resolutions of Bar Associations in India are null and void and the right minded lawyers should ignore and defy such resolutions if they want democracy and rule of law to be upheld in this country. It is the duty of a lawyer to defend, no matter what the consequences, and a lawyer who refuses to do so is not following the message of the Gita.
