The Supreme Court denounced that a refusal to accept a brief of an accused by an advocates association or other representative body was “a disgrace to the legal community” and “null and void”.
The bench headed by Justice Markandey Katju quashed the counter-criminal charges filed by lawyers and policemen that stemmed from a 2007 dispute between lawyers and women constables in Coimbatore.
The court held: “Professional ethics requires that a lawyer cannot refuse a brief, provided a client is willing to pay his fee, and the lawyer is not otherwise engaged.”
This decision arose from Coimbatore Bar Association’s resolution declining to defend the policemen embroiled in a fight with lawyers back in 2007, the Hindustan Times reported.
“Every person, however, wicked, depraved, vile, degenerate, perverted, loathsome, execrable, vicious or repulsive he may be regarded by society, has a right to be defended in a court of law and correspondingly it is the duty of the lawyer to defend him,” the Supreme Court said.
Comments
“Every person, however, wicked, depraved, vile, degenerate, perverted, loathsome, execrable, vicious or repulsive he may be regarded by society, has a right to be defended in a court of law and correspondingly it is the duty of the lawyer to defend him,” the Supreme Court said.
Will a doctor let a person accused of a crime, die from his wounds/sickness, because the doctor disapproved of the errant behaviour?
Recently, many lawyers associations have in a mistaken sense of patriotism passed resolutions saying they will not give representations to people being prosecuted for terrorism.
Naive, stupid and utterly condemnable from the viewpoint of ethics.