Supreme Court Reaffirms Right to Legal Representation – Implications for the Ram Temple Embezzlement Case

Supreme Court Reaffirms Right to Legal Representation – Implications for the Ram Temple Embezzlement Case The Supreme Court has struck down a resolution passed by the Faizabad Bar that sought to deny counsel to the accused in the Ram Temple embezzlement case . The judgment rests on constitutional guarantees and professional ethics, reinforcing that even a ‘wicked’ person must be allowed a competent advocate. Key Developments The Faizabad Bar’s resolution was declared “wholly illegal, against all traditions and professional ethics” by a Division Bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra. The Court cited Article 22(1) as the constitutional basis for the right to counsel. The judgment reaffirmed that the Bar Council of India Rules obligate advocates to accept any brief unless exceptional circumstances exist. Important Facts The precedent comes from the 2010 case A.S. Mohammed Rafi vs. State of Tamil Nadu , where a local bar in Coimbatore tried to boycott police officers accused of assault. The Court held that a lawyer’s duty to defend is independent of the client’s moral character. Justice Katju famously wrote that “every person, however wicked, has a right to be defended”. The judgment also invoked historical examples, such as Thomas Erskine’s defence of Thomas Paine and the fictional counsel Atticus Finch , to illustrate the timeless nature of this principle. UPSC Relevance Understanding this judgment is crucial for GS2 (Polity) as it highlights: