When Lawyers Defy the Constitution
The India Commentary view
View all posts by this Author
By Our Editorial Team
First publised on 2026-07-06 06:14:17
About the Author
The India Commentary view
View all posts by this Author
The Faizabad Bar Association's decision to prohibit its members from defending the eight accused in the alleged embezzlement of Ram temple funds is more than an ill-advised resolution. By reportedly threatening a Rs 5 lakh fine against any lawyer who accepts their brief, the association has crossed into territory that the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared illegal.
The irony is striking. Those who are expected to uphold the law are attempting to prevent it from functioning.
Every accused person has a constitutional right to legal representation, irrespective of the allegations. Article 22(1) guarantees every arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of his choice. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. These protections cannot be suspended because a case has generated public anger or involves an emotionally charged issue.
The Supreme Court has made this position abundantly clear. In A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), it held that however unpopular or despised an accused may be, every person has the right to be defended. A lawyer who represents an accused is not endorsing the alleged offence but performing a professional duty essential to the administration of justice.
Earlier, in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003), the Court had already held that strikes and boycotts by lawyers are illegal except in the rarest of circumstances affecting the independence of the judiciary. High Courts have likewise declared resolutions preventing advocates from appearing for particular accused persons to be unenforceable.
Yet such incidents continue to recur. Lawyers refused to defend the accused in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. Similar resolutions have surfaced in cases involving terrorism and other offences that provoked widespread outrage. Each time, the principle remains unchanged. The right to a fair trial depends upon the availability of competent legal representation.
The present controversy deserves particular attention because it concerns allegations linked to the Ram temple, an issue that evokes deep public emotions. That makes adherence to constitutional principles even more important. Courts exist to decide cases on evidence and law, not on sentiment. Lawyers have a special responsibility to preserve that distinction.
Bar associations are entitled to express views on issues affecting the legal profession. They are not entitled to decide who deserves legal representation or to intimidate advocates who accept unpopular briefs. Such resolutions undermine not only the independence of lawyers but also the constitutional rights of the accused.
The consequences extend beyond the present case. If bar associations can collectively deny representation to one set of accused persons today, the same principle can tomorrow be applied to those accused of terrorism, corruption, communal violence or politically sensitive offences. Constitutional rights cease to be rights if they become dependent on the popularity of the person asserting them.
The Supreme Court has already settled the law. The Constitution has guaranteed the right. It is now for the legal profession to decide whether it wishes to be remembered as the guardian of those principles or as an institution that chose public sentiment over constitutional duty.
