Bar resolutions boycotting accused representation violate constitutional rights to fair trial and counsel choice.

ORDER

The defacto complainant in this case is an Advocate practising in Kuzhithurai. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking transfer of the case in CC.No.703 of 2025 from the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari District to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were informed that there is a resolution passed by the Bar barring Kuzhithurai and Kanyakumari Advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners. The learned counsel by referring to the orders of this court passed in CrlOP(MD)No.19341 of 2019 dated 02.01.2020 and Crl OP(MD)No.16202 of 2022, dated 11.11.2022 submits that this court has entertained the similar petitions seeking transfer of cases, in which the defacto complainants are practising advocates, from the courts of Kanyakumari to other courts.

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submits that there is no such resolution as alleged by the petitioners and the petitioners have not placed any such resolution before this court. According to him it is a case and counter. Therefore, there is no necessity to transfer the case.

4.This court has considered the rival submissions made.

5.This is not the first time, this court deals with such a prayer.

Several persons have approached this court making certain allegations as against the Bar members of Kanyakumari district and that they are not provided with any legal assistance, whenever the complaints have been lodged by their Bar members. This court has also taken cognisance of a similar issue in Crl.OP(MD)Nos.13177, 13661, 12098 and 13525 of 2025, wherein the petitioners were also denied legal representation on account of the decision of Bar association. This court by order dated 05.11.2025 has held that such a practice is against the Constitution and violates the standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette.

The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

“15.At the outset, this Court cannot ignore the fact that allegations of this nature against the Nagercoil Bar Association are not novel. Since 2010, not less than thirty cases have reached this Court alleging that resolutions, formal or informal, were passed preventing appearance for certain accused. The list of such cases have also been placed before this Court. The repeated emergence of allegations of this nature indicates a disturbing pattern of professional indiscipline which threatens to diminish the Bar’s standing as an integral component of the judicial process.

16.This Court deems it appropriate to reiterate the settled legal position:-

● Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of their life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The right to a fair trial is a part of Article 21 and the same can be ensured only when the accused are defended by competent Counsel. It is also an essential element of natural justice and fairness inherent in the criminal justice system.

● Article 22(1) guarantees to every person the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of one’s choice.

● Article 39A requires the State to ensure equal opportunity for securing justice and to provide free legal aid where necessary.

Any act, formal or informal, by a Bar Association or its members, preventing an accused from engaging Counsel of choice, is a direct assault on these constitutional guarantees.

17.The Advocates Act, 1961 and Bar Council of India Rules impose a solemn duty upon advocates to accept briefs consistent with their standing and not to refuse representation without special circumstances. Part VI, Chapter II of the Bar Council of India Rules, under “Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette”, imposes positive obligat