A Law unto Themselves [Economic & Political Weakly]
👉A Law unto Themselves👈
👉State bar councils need to rein in lawyers’ associations that obstruct the course of justice.
The lawlessness of lawyers was demonstrated yet again when protesting members of the Kathua and Jammu bar associations tried to prevent the police from filing a charge sheet against the accused in the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl. This group of lawyers did not stop at their unsuccessful attempts, but went on to declare a strike, bringing the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir to a standstill. They openly appealed to civil society to observe 11 April as a bandh, and have reportedly been threatening the counsel of the Kathua rape victim’s family to stay away from the case. The high court has started functioning since, with the Supreme Court having taken suo motu cognisance of the lawyers’ obstructive behaviour and admonishing them.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v Union of India (2003), where it held that “lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike,” the bar associations refuse to fall in line. The Supreme Court had further ruled that “no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored.”
Over the years, lawyers’ strikes, boycotts and intimidating “protests” have had very little to do with the functioning of the courts or the judicial system. In 2016, television news channels showed some lawyers in Delhi’s Patiala court premises manhandling journalists and Jawaharlal Nehru University student leaders, and even defending their actions as being in pursuit of their “nationalist” duty. In the same year, lawyers in Bengaluru indulged in violence in a face-off with the police while their counterparts in Kerala went on a prolonged strike, which often turned ugly.
In May 2008, Mohammed Shoaib, a Lucknow lawyer was targeted by angry fellow lawyers at a Faizabad court because, according to them, he was defending a “terrorist.” In fact, a number of bar associations pass resolutions prohibiting their members from defending respondents deemed to be “terrorists.” In Bastar, the Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group was forced to leave on the grounds that it was helping Maoists. This is in clear contravention of Rule 11 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, part of the Bar Council of India Rules: “An advocate is bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals or before any other authorities in or before which he proposes to practise at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case. Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief.”
While bar councils are statutorily recognised regulatory bodies, it is the bar associations that tend to frequently insist on boycotts and protests for their demands. These associations are influential in the day-to-day activities of the advocates and most advocates prefer to go along with their diktats. It is the mandate of bar councils to check and penalise the misconduct of advocates and these associations, and the councils have been provided with statutory powers to do so. However, no such action has been taken by councils to pull up those calling for strikes and prohibiting members from appearing for certain defendants. In fact, it is the Supreme Court that has had to chastise the associations in the present case.
The other disturbing effect of frequent strikes and protests by lawyers is the increase in the heavy pendency and backlog of cases in the courts. The Law Commission of India in its 266th report of 2017 had pointed out that 2.5 crore cases are pending only in the lower courts and that wastage of judicial time due to strikes by lawyers is one of the main reasons. The unconscionably large number of adjournments is also partly due to protests by lawyers.
Lawyers enjoy a great deal of prestige in Indian society and everyone looks to them for their defence and for justice, especially the poor among the accused. The rule of law and the defence of democratic rights depend largely on their functioning and work ethic. Regulation and overseeing of bar associations by the respective state bar councils should be strengthened, and legal education must aim at ensuring that legal ethics is a significant part of the course. Instead of calling for strikes, lawyers can protest through other means like press statements or peaceful protests away from court premises, so as not to go against the legal and moral demands of their profession.
But when bar associations like that of Kathua and Jammu, whose members are the very defenders of the law, turn into a violent mob during these protests and strikes, what hope would the poor family have that the perpetrators of their daughter’s rape and murder would be brought to justice? It is high time the Indian bar took strong action and strengthened its self-regulatory mechanisms to ensure that lawyers, in fact, conduct themselves as the protectors of the law they purport to be
Comments
Post a Comment
share your views