The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that denying a lawyer to any accused, irrespective of the crime, violates constitutional guarantees and professional ethics. Recent judgments and High Court orders invalidate Bar Association resolutions that refuse to represent certain defendants, reinforcing the right to a fair trial.
Key Developments
- 2010 judgment in A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu declared Bar Association resolutions refusing representation as “wholly illegal” and “null and void”.
- Uttarakhand High Court (2019) clarified that individual advocates may refuse a case only on personal grounds, not because of a Bar Association’s directive.
- Karnataka High Court (2020) labeled obstructive Bar resolutions as “sheer militancy” and potential contempt of court.
- Madras High Court (2025) reiterated that the Bar is an institution of constitutional significance, not a trade union that can dictate representation.
- Supreme Court (2017) struck down a Gurgaon Bar resolution that barred lawyers from defending a senior official in the Pradyuman Thakur murder case.
Constitutional Foundations
The right to counsel is anchored in several constitutional provisions:
- Article 21 recognizes a fair trial as part of life and liberty.
- Article 22(1) explicitly provides the right to legal representation.
- Article 39A obliges the State to ensure that economic or other disabilities do not bar access to counsel.
Professional Rules
The Bar Council of India Rules state that an advocate must accept any brief unless “special circumstances” exist. The Uttarakhand High Court clarified that such circumstances apply only to the individual lawyer, not to a collective Bar decision.
Impact on Bar Associations
Resolutions that prohibit members from representing certain accused—whether police, terrorists, or alleged rapists—contravene:
- Constitutional guarantees of