AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2010 was considered by the Supreme Court along with Civil Appeal No. 10304 -10308 of 2010 and a common judgment was passed in all cases. While granting the plea of the Coimbatore Bar Association in Civil Appeal No. 10304 -103 08 of 2010 that the observations made against it in the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madras should be quashed, the Supreme Court considered the validity and propriety of a resolution passed by the Bar Association exhorting its members not to defend the policemen, who were accused in a particular criminal case. The apex Court observed that several Bar Associations all over India, whether High Court Bar Associations or District Court Bar Associations, have passed resolutions that they would not defend a particular person or persons in a particular criminal case. Sometimes there are 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 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.
The Supreme Court referred to various historical examples and held 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 Court also held 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 is, in fact, a disgrace to the legal community. The Court declared 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. The Supreme Court directed the registry to circulate copies of the judgment/order to all High Court Bar Associations and State Bar Councils in India and the High Court Bar Associations in turn were requested to circulate the judgment/order to all the District Court Bar Associations in their States/Union territories.