Back
2010 (8) Supreme 720
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
A.S. Mohammed Rafi — Appellant(s)
versus
State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Home Dept. & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2010
(arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.6820 of 2008)
with
Civil Appeal Nos. 10304-10308 of 2010
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.26659-26663 of 2008)
Decided on : 6-12-2010
Facts of the case:
In this case the Supreme Court disapproved the attitude of the Bar Associations not to defend terrorists etc.
Finding of the Court:
Resolutions of Bar Associations not to defend any particular accused are against all norms of the Constitution, the Statute and professional ethics.
Result :
Such resolutions declared null and void.
JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J. —
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2310 of 2010
(arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.6820 of 2008)
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal has been file against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 29.4.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.716 of 2007.
4. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and order and hence we are not repeating the same here.
5. The High Court had appointed a Commission of Enquiry headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.P. Sivasubramaniam, a retired Judge of the High Court of Madras which is on record.
6. During the course of the proceedings today, we had requested Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned senior counsel, to assist us as Amicus Curiae in this case and we are grateful to Mr. Altaf Ahmad and we appreciate his assistance to us in this case.
7. As suggested by Mr. Altaf Ahmad, without going into the merits of the controversy, we direct that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) be given to the appellant by the State of Tamil Nadu as compensation. We have been informed that the appellant had already received a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and hence the remaining sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) shall be paid by the State of Tamil Nadu to the appellant within a period of two months from today.
8. FIR No.2105 of 2006 dated 15.12.2006 on the file of B-4 Police Station (Law and Order), Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore city against the appellant stands quashed.
9. To put quietus to the matter FIR No.2106 of 2006 on the file of B-4 Police Station (Law and Order), Race Course Police Station, Coimbatore city against the police also stands quashed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
10. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is substituted by our order. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10304-10308 of 2010
(arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.26659-26663 of 2008)
11. Leave granted.
12. Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior counsel, appears for the Coimbatore Bar Association.
13. We agree with the submission of Mr. P.H. Parekh that the observations made against the Coimbatore Bar Association in para 13 of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court should be quashed. We order accordingly.
14. Before parting with this case, we would like to comment upon a matter of great legal and constitutional importance which has caused us deep distress in this case. It appears that the Bar Association of Coimbatore passed a resolution that no member of the Coimbatore Bar will defend the accused policemen in the criminal case against them in this case.
15. Several Bar Association all over India, whether High Court Bar Associations or District Court Bar Associations have passed resolutions that they will not defend a particular person or persons in a particular criminal case. Sometimes there are clashes between policemen and lawyers, and the Bar Association passes a resolution that no one will defend the policemen in the criminal case in court. Similarly, sometimes the Bar Association passes a resolution that they will not defend a person who is alleged to be a terrorist or a person accused of a brutal or heinous crime or involved in a rape case.
16. In our opinion, such resolutions are wholly illegal, against all traditions of the bar, and against professional ethics. Every person, however, wicked, depraved, vile, degenerate, perverted, loathsome, execrable, vicious or repulsive he may be regarded by society has a right to be defended in a court of law and correspondingly it is the duty of the lawyer to defend him.
17. We may give some historical examples in this connection.
18. When the great revolutionary writer Thomas Paine was jailed and tried for treason in England in 1792 for writing his famous pamphlet ‘The Rights of Man’ in defence of the French Revolution the great advocate Thomas Erskine (1750-1823) was briefed to defend him. Erskine was at that time the Att
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
