VHP opposes Faizabad Bar’s ban on defending Ram Temple donation theft accused

The VHP criticised the Faizabad Bar Association's decision to bar lawyers from defending accused in the Ram Janmabhoomi donation theft case, calling it unconstitutional and unethical. It urged reconsideration, citing Supreme Court rulings protecting every accused person's right to legal representation

New Delhi: The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Tuesday criticised the Faizabad Bar Association’s resolution barring advocates from appearing for those accused in the alleged theft of donations from the Ram Janmabhoomi temple, saying the move violated constitutional principles and professional ethics.

The remarks came a day after the bar association passed a resolution saying no advocate would appear for those accused in the alleged theft of donation money from the Ram Janmabhoomi temple and announced a fine of Rs 5 lakh on any lawyer who chose to represent them.

---

VHP international president Alok Kumar said he has no sympathy for those accused in the case but cannot support any position that is “unethical and unlawful”. “I have no sympathy with any person accused of the heinous offence of chadhava chori (donation theft) in the Ram Janmbhoomi Mandir. We would earnestly press that the investigation is quickly completed, the matter tried in a fast-track court and the guilty persons go behind bars, say within four to five months from now.

“However, this does not persuade me to support a position that is both unethical and unlawful,” Kumar said in a post on X. He urged the bar association to reconsider its decision, saying, “Ayodhya Bar resolution violates constitutional principles and professional ethics. I would hope that the Ayodhya Bar Association shall consider the judgment.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s 2011 judgment in the A S Mohammed Rafi case, Kumar said the apex court has held that resolutions by bar associations refusing to defend particular accused were “wholly illegal”, contrary to the traditions of the bar and against professional ethics.

“The Supreme Court held that ‘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’,” Kumar said, quoting the judgment.

Kumar also added that the Constitution also guarantees every arrested person the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.

He further cited the Bar Council of India Rules, which require advocates to accept briefs in courts where they ordinarily practise, except in special circumstances.

“Chapter II of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India on ‘Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette’ says: ‘An advocate is bound to accept any brief in the Courts or Tribunals or before any other authorities in or before which he proposes to practise at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case. Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief’,” he said.

He said the Supreme Court has also declared such resolutions by bar associations “null and void” and directed that copies of its judgment be circulated to all high court bar associations and state bar councils for further dissemination to district bar associations across the country.

“The Supreme Court declared that all such resolutions of bar associations in India are null and void and the right-minded lawyers should ignore and defy such resolutions if they want democracy and rule of law to be upheld in this country. It is the duty of a lawyer to defend no matter what the consequences, and a lawyer who refuses to do so is not following the message of the Gita,” Kumar said, quoting the SC order.

The lawyers’ body in Ayodhya on Monday also demanded that Champat Rai, Anil Mishra and Gopal Rao — all associated with the management of the temple but not mentioned in the FIR — “must leave” Ayodhya “within three days” or the entire city would be blockaded and no one would be allowed to enter.