JAIPUR:
The day after a directive was issued not to contest the cases of the
terror-accused produced in the sessions court of the city, it has attracted
sharp reaction from a section of the lawyer
fraternity.
Some senior advocates and
leading criminal lawyers are not ready to subscribe to the stand taken by
Rajasthan High Court Bar Association and District Bar Association, Jaipur, for
not providing any legal assistance to the blast
accused.
However, Bar
Association president Madhav Mitra Sharma, who has issued the directive to the
lawyers to abstain from taking up the case of Shahbaz Hussain, the alleged
mastermind behind the Jaipur blasts, has justified it saying: "The terrorists
does not deserve sympathy from the society. They are not only anti-socials but
also anti-nationals."
"They
have threatened the legal fraternity by conducting blasts in the court premises
at Varanasi, Faizabad, Lucknow in UP. We simply want to give a message that any
assault on the judiciary will not be tolerated and they must not think that
lawyers will get deterred by their act of cowardice," explained
Sharma.
Justifying his stand, he said
that an emergency meeting of the general body of the Bar was called on Wednesday
and it has been unanimously resolved that its members would not render any legal
assistance to the accused terrorists and suspects in the
matter.
"It might be wrong
legally but it is justified morally. We are a citizen first and then a lawyer.
We are with the residents of the Pink City on this issue," Madhav
said.
However, designated
senior advocate of high court S R Bajwa has opposed the whip saying that all an
accused invariably has a right to be defended and it is immaterial whether he is
proved guilty or not.
"The liberty of
an accused may be curtailed but that should also be according to the set norms
under the law and no one, including an advocate, has a right to do it in an
arbitrary fashion. Ethics and emotions cannot go hand in hand in legal
profession," he said.
"Every
accused has a right to defense and lawyers must respect it as they are
professionals. A fair trial will prevent several retaliating minds to calm down
as they are on the border line to join the terrorism for they believe as being a
second-grade citizen," he
added.
"I can’t say to an
accused that I won’t associate myself with him simply because he bears a
bad reputation in the society. This approach will prove fatal as it would create
hatred between two communities. It is, therefore, in the interest of the nation
that they be allowed to plead themselves through a pleader," Bajwa
added.
Echoing similar
sentiments, another senior lawyer, Vimal Choudhary said, "The accused has a
legal right to be defended and lawyers community cannot divest him of his this
legal right. It is for the court to see that his rights are protected as no one
should be condemned
unheard."
Adding his voice of
dissent, leading criminal lawyer A K Gupta said that the action might be
justified morally but it’s totally wrong ethically as well as legally as
no lawyer can deny any person from engaging himself as a pleader in any matter
as per the code of practice of the advocates in the country.