Apex court says lawyers can't refuse to defend any accused
Apex court says lawyers can't refuse to defend any accused
Not every case is similar to that of defending Kasab, the lone surviving terrorist of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, when lawyers might face a conscience question to fight a legal battle for him. Now advocates cannot refuse to fight a case in the defence of any accused, whoever that might be. 
According to a Supreme Court judgement, however 'wicked, depraved, vile, degenerate, perverted, loathsome, execrable, vicious or repulsive' a person may be regarded by the society, he has the right to be defended in a court of law and 'correspondingly it is the duty of a lawyer to defend him'. The order was passed by the bench headed by Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
The court said 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 said that several Bar Associations all over India, whether the High Court Bar Associations or the District Court Bar Associations, have passed resolutions that they will not defend a particular person 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.
Likewise, a lot of people are not defended in rape cases or a person accused of a brutal or heinous crime. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, such resolutions are illegal. "Even in the case of Ajmal Kasab, the main accused of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, lawyers refused to represent Kasab but the then Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, pronounced that he deserves the chance to a free and just trial in consonance to the article 22(1) of our Constitution. The article itself says that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice," says Vikas Gupta, a senior lawyer.
The apex court cited various examples from history in this regard. It said that at the Nuremberg trials, even the Nazi criminals who killed millions of people were defended by lawyers. Also, when 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, a lawyer Thomas Erskine 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 accepts the brief, he would be
dismissed from office. Undeterred, Erskine accepted that brief and was dismissed from office.
In this connection, the Supreme Court also made a reference to the legendary American lawyer Clarence Darrow who was strongly of the view that every accused has the right to be defended in court. Most lawyers in America refused to accept the briefs of such apparently wicked people like brutal killers, terrorists, etc. but Clarence Darrow would accept their briefs and defend them, because he was firmly of the view that every person has the right to be defended in court.
By the law
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India states that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
