Eight men arrested in the alleged Ram Mandir donation embezzlement case; Ayodhya lawyers resolved not to defend them
The boycott has raised constitutional concerns over every accused person's right to legal representation and a fair trial
Supreme Court rulings make it clear that bar associations cannot prevent advocates from appearing for an accused
What Is The Ram Mandir Donation Case About?
The arrest of eight men accused over the alleged embezzlement of donations at the Ram temple has sparked a legal and ethical debate after the Ayodhya Bar announced that they would not represent the accused in court.
The lawyers’ body in Ayodhya passed a resolution warning that any member going against the boycott would face a Rs 5 lakh penalty and demanded that Champat Rai, Anil Mishra and Gopal Rao – all associated with the management of the temple but not mentioned in the FIR – “must leave” Ayodhya.
While the criminal case will proceed before the courts, the controversy has shifted to another question: Can lawyers collectively refuse to defend an accused person because of the nature of the allegations?
Why Did Ayodhya Lawyers Refuse To Represent The Accused?
Soon after the arrests, several lawyers practising in Ayodhya reportedly declared that they would not appear for the accused. Some advocates argued that cheating people in the name of Lord Ram and the Ram Mandir had deeply hurt religious sentiments and that they did not wish to be associated with the defence.
The decision drew widespread attention because it raised concerns about access to justice. Legal experts point out that personal moral objections may influence an individual lawyer's decision to decline a brief before accepting it. However, a collective decision by lawyers to deny legal representation to an accused can create constitutional concerns.
The issue is not whether the accused deserve sympathy but whether the criminal justice system can function fairly if an accused person is denied legal assistance.
Does Every Accused Person Have A Right To A Lawyer?
Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees that every arrested person has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. This protection is reinforced by Article 21, under which the Supreme Court has consistently held that a fair trial is an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, now largely replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), also recognises the right of an accused to legal representation. If an accused cannot secure a lawyer or cannot afford one, legal aid can be provided through the Legal Services Authorities established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
The right to legal representation does not imply innocence. It ensures that guilt or innocence is determined through a fair judicial process.
Can Bar Associations Stop Members From Taking A Case?
Bar associations may express opinions or pass resolutions, but they cannot legally prohibit advocates from appearing for an accused person.
The legal profession is governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, and professional conduct rules framed by the Bar Council of India. An advocate is free to accept or decline a case before engagement. However, organised resolutions preventing members from appearing for a particular accused have repeatedly been criticised by courts as inconsistent with the administration of justice.
Such resolutions do not have the force of law and cannot override an accused person's constitutional rights.
What Has The Supreme Court Said In Similar Situations?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even those accused of the most serious crimes are entitled to legal representation. In A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), the Court ruled that bar associations cannot pass resolutions restraining advocates from defending particular accused persons. It observed that every individual, regardless of the allegations against them, has a constitutional right to legal assistance and a fair trial.
The Court has echoed similar principles in earlier decisions, emphasising that the legal profession serves the cause of justice rather than public sentiment. Representing an accused does not amount to endorsing the alleged offence.
The Ram Mandir donation case has once again highlighted the tension between public emotion and constitutional guarantees. While lawyers may exercise personal discretion in accepting briefs, India's legal framework remains clear that every accused person, irrespective of the allegations, is entitled to competent legal representation and a fair opportunity to defend themselves before a court of law.
