State Bar Council Should Act Against Bar Associations Passing Resolutions To Not Defend An Accused : Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the State Bar Council should take swift action against Bar Associations which pass resolutions calling upon its members to not defend a particular accused.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay S Oka and Suraj Govindaraj referred to the Supreme Court decision in A S Mohamed Rafi vs State of Tamil Nadu which had held that "the action of any...
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the State Bar Council should take swift action against Bar Associations which pass resolutions calling upon its members to not defend a particular accused.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay S Oka and Suraj Govindaraj referred to the Supreme Court decision in A S Mohamed Rafi vs State of Tamil Nadu which had held that "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".
The Court was hearing a petition filed against the Mysore District Bar Association for allegedly passing a resolution to not represent a student booked for sedition over holding a "Free Kashmit" poster during an anti-CAA protest last year.
The Association told the Court that the resolution was pasted on its notice board by "some unknown miscreants".
Advocate Basavaraj S Sappanavar, appearing for the association, said "Some miscreants did it, soon after I came to know I have removed (the resolution)".
He added that more than 100 advocates of the Respondent 2 (Bar Association) filed vakalat for and on behalf of the said accused and she was granted anticipatory bail by the court.
The counsel also informed the court about a response received by him from the Mysore City Advocates Multipurpose Cooperative Society, in which it has denied of passing the impugned resolution.
Following which the court in its order noted "It is not in dispute that a notice was published on the notice board of Respondent 2. Statement of objections has been filed by the respondent, pointing out that it has not passed any such resolution and members appeared on behalf of the accused and that the accused was released on bail. A memo has been filed by the bar association in terms of order dated March 16. A copy of a letter dated march 25, issued by the Mysore City Advocates Multipurpose Cooperative Society is issued. It is stated there that said society has not passed any such resolution".
The court said "Thus the situation which emerges is no one knows who had affixed the notice on the notice board of the bar association."
The bench opined, "While we appreciate the stand taken by respondent 2 (Bar association), which shows that members of the association defended the accused, it is necessary for us to refer to the law laid down by the apex court in A S Mohamed Rafi vs State of Tamil Nadu.
It added "This is the law which binds all the Bar association and members, thereof. The Karnataka State Bar Council is made aware of the legal position and we are sure that wherever any bar association acts contrary to law laid down in para 24 of the said decision in case of AS Mohammed Rafi vs State of Tamil Nadu, the state bar council will take swift action."
Following which the court disposed of the petition filed by Advocate Ramesh Naik L.