The Ayodhya Bar Association’s decision to prohibit its members from representing the accused in the alleged Ram Mandir donation embezzlement case has triggered a nationwide debate over the constitutional right to legal representation and the ethical responsibilities of lawyers.
The association has reportedly warned that any advocate who accepts the accused’s case will face a penalty of ₹5 lakh. The resolution has reignited a long-standing question within the legal fraternity: should lawyers allow personal or collective moral beliefs to influence their professional obligations, or does the justice system require that every accused person be guaranteed legal representation?
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The debate echoes the famous principle articulated by English jurist William Blackstone, who observed that “it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”—a doctrine that has remained a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence across democratic legal systems.
Senior members of the Supreme Court Bar have expressed concern over the Ayodhya Bar Association’s resolution, arguing that it raises serious constitutional and ethical issues.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra said that the legal profession is guided by “legal morality” rather than public opinion or prevailing social sentiment. He explained that lawyers are expected to adhere to the “cab rank rule,” under which an advocate should ordinarily accept a client’s brief, provided there is no conflict of interest and the client is willing to pay the prescribed fee.
According to Luthra, legal practitioners are not expected to decide cases based on public perception or moral judgments.
He further emphasised that every accused person enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence under Article 21 and has the fundamental right to legal representation. The responsibility of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, he noted, rests entirely with the prosecution.
Luthra argued that regardless of the seriousness of the allegations, a collective decision by a Bar association to deny legal representation to an accused person is inconsistent with the ethical standards laid down under the Bar Council of India Rules.
He also observed that such a boycott could potentially provide grounds for transferring the trial to another district or, in exceptional circumstances, even to another state to ensure that the accused receives a fair and impartial trial.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi also weighed in on the issue, stating that the controversy must be examined through the lens of constitutional morality, underscoring the importance of safeguarding the principles of justice and due process even in cases that evoke strong public emotions.
(This story is published from a syndicated feed)
