Resolution asking not to appear for accused goes against professional ethics’
COIMBATORE, MARCH 19, 2019 00:00 IST
While the Pollachi Bar Association is said to have adopted a resolution not to defend any of the accused in the Pollachi sexual abuse case, the Coimbatore Bar Association (CBA) said that it has not taken a similar stand on the issue as it is against professional ethics.
K. Sudheesh, CBA secretary, told The Hindu that the association had not taken any such resolution.
‘Against SC order’
“The Bar Association cannot pass such a resolution. Any such decision is against the Supreme Court order in A.S. Mohammed Rafi vs State Of Tamilnadu case in 2010,” he said.
The apex court Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra had observed that “several Bar Association all over India, whether High Court Bar Associations or District Court Bar Associations have passed resolutions that they will 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 heinous crime or involved in a rape case.”
“In our opinion, 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,” said the order which also added that such resolutions are null and void and the right-minded lawyers should ignore and defy such resolutions.
Citing the order, S. Balamurugan, advocate and national council member of People’s Union for Civil Liberty said that no Bar Association can ask an advocate not to defend an accused in a sensational case.
However, individual advocate was free to take his or her decision.
Meanwhile, the main accused in the case K. Thirunavukkarasu is yet to have his counsel, according to sources privy to the court proceedings.
When the court asked whether he had a counsel, the accused had mentioned the name of an advocate while being produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, on March 15.
However, no advocate had appeared for the accused, added sources.
COIMBATORE, MARCH 19, 2019 00:00 IST
While the Pollachi Bar Association is said to have adopted a resolution not to defend any of the accused in the Pollachi sexual abuse case, the Coimbatore Bar Association (CBA) said that it has not taken a similar stand on the issue as it is against professional ethics.
K. Sudheesh, CBA secretary, told The Hindu that the association had not taken any such resolution.
‘Against SC order’
“The Bar Association cannot pass such a resolution. Any such decision is against the Supreme Court order in A.S. Mohammed Rafi vs State Of Tamilnadu case in 2010,” he said.
The apex court Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra had observed that “several Bar Association all over India, whether High Court Bar Associations or District Court Bar Associations have passed resolutions that they will 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 heinous crime or involved in a rape case.”
“In our opinion, 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,” said the order which also added that such resolutions are null and void and the right-minded lawyers should ignore and defy such resolutions.
Citing the order, S. Balamurugan, advocate and national council member of People’s Union for Civil Liberty said that no Bar Association can ask an advocate not to defend an accused in a sensational case.
However, individual advocate was free to take his or her decision.
Meanwhile, the main accused in the case K. Thirunavukkarasu is yet to have his counsel, according to sources privy to the court proceedings.
When the court asked whether he had a counsel, the accused had mentioned the name of an advocate while being produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, on March 15.
However, no advocate had appeared for the accused, added sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment