Bar Association, lawyers’ collective cannot dictate whom to defend in courts: HC

Neither Bar Association nor any collective of lawyers has any authority, moral or legal, to dictate who may or may not be defended in courts, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has said.

Justice B. Pugalendhi said the right to legal representation was not a matter of professional favour but a constitutional guarantee. Such actions of prevention, whether by formal resolution or informal pressure, struck at the very root of the rule of law and the constitutional guarantees of fair trial and legal representation. The Bar, as an institution integral to the administration of justice, must uphold these values with commitment.

The independence of the Bar is a cornerstone of the judiciary. That independence is not demonstrated by defiance of the law but by adherence to the rule of law. The strength of the legal profession lay not in numbers or solidarity of sentiment, but in courage, conscience, and commitment to constitutional values, the court observed.

The court was hearing petitions in which the issues raised were interconnected regarding allegations about the conduct of members of Nagercoil Bar Association and other connected bar associations, resulting in denial of effective legal representation to certain accused persons, and also allegations of criminal acts involving certain advocates. The Bar Association denied the allegations.

The court said allegations of this nature against Nagercoil Bar Association were not new. Since 2010, not less than 30 cases had reached the court alleging that resolutions were passed preventing appearance for certain accused.

Any act by a Bar Association or its members preventing an accused from engaging counsel of choice was a direct assault on constitutional guarantees. The Bar Associations were representative bodies meant to uphold professional honour and independence. If they, instead, became instruments of intimidation or exclusion, they betrayed their own charter and erode public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court could not turn a blind eye when the right to a fair trial was being compromised under the pretext of professional unity. It was to be reminded that the Bar was not a trade union, but an institution of constitutional significance. Any attempt to convert it into a pressure group dictating who might or might not be represented before a court of law was nothing short of contempt of the rule of law.

The trial courts should ensure that the accused were provided effective legal representation and that no advocate was subjected to intimidation or pressure for appearing on their behalf. If any advocate or Bar Association was found to have interfered, such conduct should be immediately reported to the court and to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, the court directed.

The court said any advocate found participating in or endorsing a boycott of appearance for any accused should be dealt with sternly. The Bar Council was directed to treat any complaint regarding collective refusal or intimidation by Bar Associations with utmost seriousness, and proceed expeditiously in accordance with law, the court directed.

Disposing of the petitions, the judge said the court expected the Bar in Kanniyakumari and other districts to think seriously about its duty to justice and act accordingly to protect the respect and trust that the legal profession deserved.