About the author
This article is written by Chandhana K.U. She is currently a final year student doing her B.A LL.B (Hons.) Degree in Bharata Mata School of Legal Studies, Choondy, Aluva. She is also an editor trainee of ljrfvoice.com
Introduction
At the heart of the matter was the question of whether a Bar Association could legally and ethically prevent its members from representing specific clients, in this case, police officers accused of assaulting lawyers. The resolution, challenged through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed in the Supreme Court of India, brought to the forefront the conflict between the right to legal representation and professional autonomy of lawyers. The petitioners, the accused police officers, argued that the resolution violated their fundamental right to legal defense as guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, which provides the right to legal counsel of one’s choice. Furthermore, they claimed that the resolution was contrary to the rules framed by the Bar Council of India, particularly Rule 11, Chapter 2, Part 6, which governs the standards of professional conduct and ethics for advocates.
This case serves as an important examination of the role of the Bar in upholding the constitutional principles of justice and fair trial, while balancing professional ethics and the duties of advocates.
Facts of the Case
In 2010, in the State of Tamil Nadu there were regular instances of numerous clashes between the Bar and the Police. As a result of such mishappenings, some of the lawyers were assaulted by certain policemen. The matter between them worsened and a criminal case was filed against the policemen in the Court, for assaulting the lawyers and against the illegal means that they had adopted. When the matter was to be tried in the Court, The Coimbatore Bar Association passed a resolution claiming that no member of the Coimbatore Bar Association would defend the accused police officers before the Court for the criminal case brought against them. A Special Leave Petition was subsequently filed in the Supreme Court of India, against the resolution passed by the Bar Association of Coimbatore that no member of the concerned Bar Association of Coimbatore would defend the accused policemen in the criminal case filed against them.
Issues
- 1) Whether the resolution passed by the Bar Association of Coimbatore is illegal and against professional ethics?
- 2) Whether a lawyer can refuse a brief if a client is willing to pay his fee and the lawyer is not otherwise engaged ?
- 3) Whether it is the duty of a lawyer to defend no matter what the consequences?
Laws Involved
- Article 22(1)* of the Constitution of India
- Article 14* of the Constitution of Indirticle 21 of the Constitution of India
- Article 21* of the Constitution of India
- *Rule 11 of Section II of Part VI of Bar Council Rules framed under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961
Reasoning/ Ratio
In A.S. Mohd. Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), the Supreme Court addressed the Coimbatore Bar Association’s resolution that prohibited its members from defending policemen accused of assaulting lawyers, deeming it unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The right to legal representation, enshrined in Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, guarantees every accused the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. By passing a resolution that barred lawyers from representing the accused policemen, the Bar Association contravened this fundamental right. Moreover, the resolution violated Article 14, ensuring equality before the law, and Article 21, which protects the right to a fair trial. Rule 11 of the Bar Council Rules further emphasizes that every advocate has a duty to defend any person who seeks their services, reinforcing the ethical obligation to provide legal representation irrespective of personal bias or external pressure. This case underscores that a resolution preventing the defense of accused individuals not only infringes upon constitutional rights but also undermines the ethical standards expected from legal professionals in maintaining justice and fairness.
The bench referred to earlier judgments that emphasized the importance of legal representation as a means to ensure fair trial and access to justice. The Court opined that the right to engage a lawyer of one’s own choice is fundamental to ensuring justice, especially in civil or criminal cases where the outcome may significantly impact personal liberty and rights.
Right to Representation
The primary legal question in this case revolves around the constitutional right to legal representation, specifically under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. This article guarantees that every person who is arrested or detained shall not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
It was held in Hussainara Khatoon v Home Secretary, State of Bihar*1 and MH Hoskot v State of Maharashtra*2 that any trial without counsel vitiates the fair trial requirement.
The resolution passed by the Coimbatore Bar Association, which denied representation to the accused police officers, directly contradicts this constitutional right. The resolution restricts the ability of the accused to choose a lawyer, which is not only a violation of their fundamental rights but also undermines the principle of fair trial and due process. In the opinion held by the bench, such resolutions are wholly illegal, against all traditions of the bar, and against professional ethics. Accused policemen had “Right to be defended”.
The Supreme Court has emphasized that the right to legal representation is an essential facet of a fair trial and that even those accused of grave offenses are entitled to competent legal defense. By refusing to defend the accused, the Bar Association sought to unilaterally deny this fundamental right, which is crucial for the proper functioning of a democratic legal system.
Duty to Defend and Professional Ethics
The duty to defend essentially means that it is the duty of the people, who are granted with the powers to defend any person before the Court of Law, to defend them in each and every possible situation and they cannot deny access to their services on any grounds, except when there is conflict of interest. This duty is universal and its importance has been highlighted in both national and international arena.
The great tradition has been pursued by Indian lawyers. Our lawyers defended the revolutionaries in Bengal under British rule, the Indian communists were defended in the Meerut conspiracy trial, our lawyers defended Razakars of Hyderabad, they defended Sheik Abdulah and his co-accused, and so were some of Mahatma Gandhi and Indira Gandhi’s suspected assassins. Dr Binayak Sen has been defended in recent times. No respectable Indian lawyer has ever shirked liability on the ground that it will render him infamous, or that doing so will be personally dangerous to him. It was in this great tradition that eminent Bombay High Court lawyer Bhulabhai Desai represented the accused at Red Fort in Delhi in the I.N.A. trials. Nevertheless, alarming news now appears from many parts of the country where Bar Associations refuse to protect those accused persons.
Under Rule 11 of Section II of Part VI of the Bar Council Rules, framed under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, an advocate is duty-bound to accept a brief, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as a conflict of interest or the inability to handle the matter professionally. The resolution passed by the Bar Association violates this duty by collectively refusing to take on the case of the police officers. It also disregards the core principles of professional ethics, which mandate that advocates should not allow personal biases or extraneous factors to interfere with their professional obligations. The advocate’s role is to defend their client to the best of their abilities, irrespective of their personal views about the client or the nature of the offense.
The Court has often reiterated that the legal profession is not a business; it is a noble calling, where lawyers serve not only the interests of their clients but also the interests of justice. Therefore, a blanket refusal to defend a class of accused persons, such as the police officers in this case, undermines the very fabric of legal ethics and the duty to uphold the rule of law.
Principle of Natural Justice
The principle of natural justice is an overarching principle of law that guarantees fairness in legal proceedings. The Bar Association’s resolution violates the principle of audi alteram partem by denying the accused the right to be heard through proper legal representation.
The Supreme Court held in the case of Shankar v. State of Maharashtra*3 that an appeal of the accused can be dismissed on the basis of merits only after hearing either the accused or his counsel.
The adversarial system of justice in India relies on the assumption that both parties will be able to present their case through competent legal professionals. Without this, the scales of justice are tipped unfairly, preventing the proper administration of justice.
The principle of Natural Justice essentially makes sure that a person should be given a fair opportunity to be heard and if we take the case of A. S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu, the policemen in this case were denied access to the legal representation, by the Bar Association of Coimbatore, in relations to the criminal appeal that was filed against them, on the grounds of some prior clash that existed between the policemen and the lawyers. Here, though the policemen were wrong in assaulting the lawyers, going beyond the ambit of rightful legal proceedings, yet they should not be denied access to the legal representation as it clearly violates the principle of Natural Justice. They have a justified right to a fair trial and the resolution passed by the Bar Association of Coimbatore, stating that no member of the Association would take up their case is completely unjustified and wrong on the ground of Principle of Natural Justice.
Violation of the Article 14: Equality before the Law
Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of laws. The resolution passed by the Bar Association creates an unequal situation by denying the police officers access to legal representation, effectively discriminating against them based on their occupation and the ongoing conflict with lawyers. This is a clear violation of Article 14, which mandates that all persons, regardless of their status, should have equal access to legal processes and rights.
The right to equality also encompasses equal access to justice, which is a fundamental component of a democratic system. The refusal by lawyers to represent a particular class of individuals creates a two-tiered system where certain individuals or groups are disadvantaged in their access to legal defense.
Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of laws. The resolution passed by the Bar Association creates an unequal situation by denying the police officers access to legal representation, effectively discriminating against them based on their occupation and the ongoing conflict with lawyers. This is a clear violation of Article 14, which mandates that all persons, regardless of their status, should have equal access to legal processes and rights.The right to equality also encompasses equal access to justice, which is a fundamental component of a democratic system. The refusal by lawyers to represent a particular class of individuals creates a two-tiered system where certain individuals or groups are disadvantaged in their access to legal defense.
Upholding Rule of Law and Professional Independence
The Bar plays an integral role in upholding the rule of law. Any attempt by the Bar to boycott or interfere with the judicial process erodes public confidence in the legal system. The Coimbatore Bar Association’s resolution, therefore, was an attempt to interfere with the due process of law by preventing the police officers from receiving a fair defense. This undermines the independence of the judiciary and erodes the integrity of the legal profession. The Supreme Court in this case upheld the importance of the legal profession’s independence and rejected the resolution passed by the Coimbatore Bar Association, reinforcing the idea that professional ethics must not be compromised under any circumstance. The resolution passed by the Coimbatore Bar Association violates the constitutional provisions enshrined under Articles 22(1), 14, and 21. It contravenes the rules of professional conduct under Rule 11 of the Bar Council Rules and offends the principle of natural justice. The Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary to uphold the fundamental rights of the accused and ensure the legal profession remains committed to justice, fairness, and equality. The refusal to represent the accused would have set a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to a breakdown in the rule of law and the ethical standards that the Bar is bound to maintain.
Judgement
The Supreme Court of India addressed a crucial issue concerning the professional obligations of lawyers and the right of every accused person to legal representation. The Coimbatore Bar Association had passed a resolution prohibiting its members from defending police officers accused of assaulting lawyers during a series of clashes. The policemen filed a Special Leave Petition, challenging this resolution as a violation of their constitutional rights, specifically the right to legal representation under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the resolution passed by the Bar Association was unconstitutional and violated not only Article 22(1) but also the principles of natural justice enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized the lawyer’s duty to defend any person accused of a crime, regardless of the nature of the accusation. It referred to Rule 11 of Section II of Part VI of the Bar Council Rules, which mandates that advocates must accept any brief unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court condemned the Bar Association’s action as a breach of professional ethics, asserting that it was the duty of every lawyer to ensure access to justice for all individuals, including those accused of heinous crimes or unpopular defendants.
The Court concluded by quashing the resolution, declaring such actions by Bar Associations to be null and void across India. It reinforced the idea that lawyers play a fundamental role in upholding the rule of law and protecting democratic values. By refusing to defend a person based on public opinion or personal biases, lawyers undermine the justice system itself. The judgment highlighted the need for the legal profession to remain committed to its ethical duties, ensuring that even those perceived as “undesirable” in society are afforded a fair trial.
Case Analysis
Professional ethics needs an attorney not to deny a brief, unless a client is not able to pay his fee and the attorney is not otherwise involved i.e. there is a possibility of conflict of interest. Consequently, the action taken by any bar association to pass such a resolution that none of its members would appear on the ground for a specific accused whether on the ground of being a police officer or on the ground of being a convicted terrorist, a rapist, a mass killer, etc., is contradictory to all the standards of the Constitution, the Legislation and professional ethics. It is against the Bar’s great values which have always stood up to defend people accused of a crime. Indeed such a resolution is a mockery to the legal community.
This case pertains to a dispute between the police and the legal fraternity in Tamil Nadu, following a series of clashes between lawyers and policemen. The issue culminated in a criminal case being filed against certain police officers for allegedly assaulting lawyers. The crux of the matter arose when the Coimbatore Bar Association passed a resolution, declaring that no lawyer from its association would defend the accused policemen in court. This resolution was challenged by the accused officers, leading to the filing of a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which sought to invalidate the resolution on the grounds that it contravened the rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, specifically under Article 22(1) (right to legal representation), Article 14 (equality before law), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Additionally, the resolution was claimed to be in violation of Rule 11 of Section II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, which governs the professional conduct of lawyers.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, made a scathing critique of the resolution passed by the Coimbatore Bar Association. The Court held that such resolutions by bar associations, which bar their members from defending particular individuals or groups, are illegal, unethical, and violative of constitutional guarantees. The Court emphasized that every person, regardless of the crime they are accused of, has the fundamental right to legal representation, and it is the duty of lawyers to defend their clients to the best of their abilities, irrespective of public sentiment or personal biases. The Court relied on the principle of natural justice, which mandates that every individual should have a fair opportunity to defend themselves. It was held that denying someone the right to a defense is tantamount to pre-judging their guilt and undermines the foundations of a fair judicial system. The Court also drew on historical and international examples, including the defense of unpopular figures by prominent lawyers, to illustrate the importance of upholding the right to defense as central to the rule of law.
The Court’s ruling is significant in reaffirming the constitutional right to representation under Article 22(1) and the ethical duty of lawyers to defend accused persons, no matter how controversial or unpopular the case. The judgment reinforces the notion that legal representation is not a privilege but a right, and any attempt by bar associations or legal practitioners to withhold this right is a violation of fundamental legal principles. Furthermore, the Court declared that such resolutions passed by bar associations are not only contrary to the ethics of the legal profession but are also null and void. By directing the circulation of this judgment to all High Court and District Court Bar Associations across India, the Court sought to ensure that this principle is upheld uniformly across the country, thus strengthening the rule of law and ensuring that justice remains accessible to all, even the most vilified individuals.
The ruling in A.S. Mohd. Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu reiterates the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding individual rights against excessive government intervention. The Court’s emphasis on access to justice as a fundamental right embedded in Article 21 is significant, as it extends the scope of personal liberty to include the right to select a legal representative. By doing so, the judgment safeguards individuals from potential state overreach that could compromise their ability to receive a fair trial or hearing.
This case is particularly relevant in the context of government employees, many of whom may face issues where the impartiality of state-appointed counsel could come into question, especially in disputes against the state. The judgment highlights the balance required between government provisions and individual rights, preventing excessive state control over personal legal choices.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in A.S. Mohd. Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu reaffirms the constitutional principles of the right to representation and the duty to defend. The Court rightly held that the resolution passed by the Coimbatore Bar Association, barring its members from defending the accused policemen, was in clear violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. This provision guarantees every accused person the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice, a fundamental right that forms a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. The Bar’s resolution undermined the principle of natural justice, which requires fair representation and a fair trial for all accused, regardless of the allegations against them.
In addition to Article 22(1), the Court also referenced Rule 11 of Section II of Part VI of the Bar Council Rules, which emphasizes an advocate’s duty to represent a client, irrespective of the lawyer’s personal opinion or societal pressures. This rule is designed to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and ensure that every individual, even those who might be seen as unpopular or undeserving, has the right to a proper defense. By refusing to represent the accused, the Bar Association not only violated the professional ethics binding on lawyers but also failed in its duty to maintain the balance of justice, which depends on the equal representation of both parties in a legal dispute.
The decision also highlights the broader constitutional framework provided under Articles 14 and 21, which ensure equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty. The Court noted that denying representation to the accused police officers based on public sentiment would have set a dangerous precedent, eroding the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens. In essence, the judgment preserves the integrity of the justice system, affirming that every person, no matter the allegations, is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, with effective legal representation as an inalienable right.
*1. 1979 SCR (3) 532
*2.AIR 1978 SC 1548
*3.Criminal Appeal No. 390 of 2018
Case citation :AIR 2011 SC 308 , 2011 (1) KLT 39 , (2011) 1 SCC 688, 2011 (1) CTC 602, 2011 GLH (1) 169, JT 2011 (3) SC 480, 2011 (1) KLJ 20, 2011 (I) OLR 531 (SC), 2011 (1) RCR 812 (Civil), 2011 (1) RCR 617 (Criminal), 2011 (1) SCC 509 (Cri), 2011 (1) UC 353
BENCH:Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
