Patriotic Jingoism at the Bar : Assault and intimidation of lawyers representing the minority community in criminal cases

SC issues notice to Bar Council, states on lawyers’ assault

New Delhi: Five lawyers hailing from the states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court alleging assaults and intimidation of lawyers representing the minority community in criminal cases. Mohd Shuaib was assaulted inside the court by lawyers and no action was taken against them. Advocate Jamal from Lucknow was expelled from the Faizabad Bar Association for daring to represent an accused. Advocate Noor Mohmmad from Ujjain was prevented from entering the court and warned of dire consequences. The District Bar Association, Nagpur, decided not to represent any of the accused persons. A similar resolution was passed by the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association which threatened action against any lawyer who went against the Bar resolution.

Notices were issued to the Bar Council of India, Rajasthan, MP, UP and Maharashtra by the Supreme Court and on hearing the matter the Supreme Court made the order dated 30.7.10 is given below:


“SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF 2008



MOHD. SHUAIB & ORS. …Petitioners



Versus



BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS. …Respondents



Date 30.07.2010 This petition was called on for hearing today.



CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR



For Petitioners: Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Divya Jyoti, Advocate

Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Advocate



For Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, Advocate

Mr. Chitranshul Sinha, Advocate



Mr. Uday B. Dube, Advocate

Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate



UPON hearing counsel the court made the following:

ORDER




Having heard learned counsel on both sides, the Bar Council of India has suggested certain steps which they will be taking. The proposed steps are submitted before us by the advocate appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of India, which read as under:

If any State Bar Council receives information/complaint that any advocate is being prevented by an advocate or advocates or any Bar Association from appearing and/or representing any accused, the Chairman of the State Bar Council and/or any member so empowered by the State Bar Council shall forthwith issue directions to the concerned advocate, advocates or Bar Association to cease and desist from such action.

In case the concerned advocate or advocates or any Bar Association does not cease and desist from such action then the information/complaint shall forthwith be referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council under section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

In case the concerned advocate or advocates or Bar Association does cease and desist from such action then the information/complaint shall be placed before the State Bar Council in the next meeting of the Council for consideration of further action.

The State Bar Council after notice to the concerned advocate or advocates or Bar Association may refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council under section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The State Bar Council shall also forward such information/complaint along with the orders issued to the Bar Council of India from time to time. The Bar Council of India on receiving such information, complaint and/or orders may issue appropriate directions under section 48B of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Needless to add, in terms of the said proposals, the Bar Council of India will take appropriate steps with respective State Bar Council, which will act in accordance with the said directions.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.



[Alka Dudeja ] [ Madhu Saxena ]
AR–cum-PS Assistant Registrar