2010 (12) TMI 1146 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether 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? Whether the action of any Bar Association in passing such a resolution that none of its members will appear for a particular accused, whether on the ground that he is a policeman or on the ground that he is a suspected terrorist, rapist, mass murderer, etc. is against all norms of the Constitution, the Statute and professional ethics?

Summary

Issues:
1. Compensation and quashing of FIR against the appellant.
2. Observations against the Coimbatore Bar Association.
3. Legality and ethical considerations of Bar Associations passing resolutions to not defend certain accused persons.

Analysis:
1. Compensation and Quashing of FIR:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the High Court's judgment and appointed a Commission of Enquiry. The Court directed the State of Tamil Nadu to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellant, in addition to the Rs. 50,000 already received, within two months. The FIR against the appellant and the police was quashed to settle the matter. The Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to make these decisions, substituting the High Court's judgment with its own order.

2. Observations Against Coimbatore Bar Association:
The Court addressed observations made against the Coimbatore Bar Association in the High Court's judgment, agreeing with the submission that such observations should be quashed. The Court highlighted a resolution passed by the Bar Association that none of its members would defend accused policemen in a criminal case. The Court emphasized the importance of defending all individuals, regardless of the nature of the crime they are accused of, citing historical examples and legal principles from the US Constitution and past cases. The Court declared such resolutions as illegal, against professional ethics, and a disgrace to the legal community.

3. Legality of Bar Associations' Resolutions:
The judgment delved into the legal and ethical obligations of lawyers to defend individuals accused of crimes, irrespective of public opinion or the nature of the offense. The Court cited examples from history and legal cases to emphasize the fundamental right of every accused person to legal representation. It highlighted constitutional provisions and professional conduct rules that mandate lawyers to accept briefs unless special circumstances justify refusal. The Court declared resolutions by Bar Associations in India to not defend certain accused persons as null and void, urging lawyers to uphold democracy and the rule of law by disregarding such resolutions. The Court directed the circulation of the judgment to all High Court Bar Associations and State Bar Councils in India for awareness and compliance.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment addressed issues of compensation, quashing of FIRs, observations against the Coimbatore Bar Association, and the legality and ethical considerations of Bar Associations passing resolutions to not defend certain accused persons. The Court emphasized the duty of lawyers to provide legal representation to all individuals, regardless of public perception or the nature of the offense, to uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law.