For the bar and the bench, why is the Constitution inadequate?

On June 29, the Faizabad Bar Association was reported to have resolved that none of its members would represent the eight men arrested in the Ram Temple donations embezzlement case. Any lawyer who wished to represent them would first have to deposit Rs 5 lakh fine per accused into the association’s account.

The reason given by its president and secretary was that the alleged theft had hurt members’ sentiments.

The association has since denied that a resolution was ever passed, saying instead that lawyers chose individually not to represent the accused because they are devotees of Ram and their sentiments are hurt by the alleged theft.

The constitutional problem is the same either way: a coordinated withdrawal of legal representation on grounds of religious sentiment is still a denial of a fundamental right.

Such withdrawals of legal representation are constitutionally indefensible. The Supreme Court’s 2010 judgment in AS Mohammed Rafi v State of Tamil Nadu settled this: such withdrawals are “wholly illegal, against all traditions and professional ethics”. Article 22(1) guarantees every arrested person the fundamental right to counsel of their choice.

Functionally, the denial of legal representation is closer to a religious and moral verdict – delivered as the individual choice of lawyers in Faizabad. The suspects are assumed guilty, instead of being presumed innocent until...

Read more