ASSIGNMENT

My first brush with an ethical dilemma in the legal profession was when I read the American
classic “To Kill A Mockingbird”. Atticus, a lawyer in a small Southern town takes up the
arduous task of defending a Black man charged with raping a white woman. His actions are
condemned by the white townsfolk, who even resort to violence against him. I understood
moral quandary more acutely when, during my internships, the Advocates would accept
people accused of rape or murder as clients. Over time, I realised that it is my professional
duty as a part of the justice system to provide a defence to the accused, regardless of the
nature of the crime allegedly committed by them.

However, I have come across several instances of State Bar Councils and lawyers’
associations passing resolutions prohibiting lawyers from appearing for certain persons. On
15 February 2020, the Hubli Bar Association passed a resolution stating none of its members
would defend three Kashmiri students who had allegedly posted a pro-Pakistan video on
social media and were charged with sedition. The resolution was withdrawn on the order of
the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. In 2019, Ranga Reddy Bar Association in Telangana said
that it was their “moral and social responsibility against the heinous crime” to not defend
those accused of the rape and murder of a veterinary doctor in Hyderabad. The scenario is
grimmer when it comes to terrorism. Lawyers pay a heavy personal price for defending
alleged terrorists. Abbas Kazmi, who was given the brief to defend Ajmal Kasab, faced
constant threats by lawyers as well as political parties. Advocate Shahid Azmi defended
another accused in the Mumbai terror attack, Faheem Ansari. Faheem was acquitted in May
2010, months after Shahid Azmi was shot dead by gunmen inside his office. Shahid was
killed because throughout his seven-year long career, he defended those accused in terrorist
attacks.

The pattern of resolutions, threats and violence towards Advocates defending persons of
heinous crimes is in flagrant violation of the Bar Council’s Standards of Professional
Conduct and Etiquette. Rule 11 of the Standards, under ‘Duty to the Client’, states:
“An advocate is bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals or before any other
authorities in or before which he proposes to practise at a fee consistent with his standing at
the Bar and the nature of the case. Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a
particular brief.”1

1
Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, Part VI, Chapter II, Section II, Rule 11.
The law has been laid down with immense clarity by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2010. 2
The Court said, “such resolutions are wholly illegal, against all traditions of the bar, and
against professional ethics.” Highlighting Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court
stressed that all “right-minded lawyers should ignore and defy such resolutions if they want
democracy and rule of law to be upheld”. Over the course of time, the ruling has not been
honoured. In my humble opinion, it is essential to implement the Apex Court’s decree
effectively on the ground. My belief stems from the fact that mounting a defence for an
accused is not synonymous with supporting his alleged actions. This is best summed up by
the rule in the USA corresponding to the aforementioned Rule 11, which states, “A lawyer’s
representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an
endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.”3

2
A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Home Dept., Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2010.
3
American Bar Association ‘Model Rules of Professional Conduct’, Rule 1.2b.