Can Bar Associations refuse to represent an accused?

Can Bar Associations refuse to represent an accused? What does the law say? 

The Faizabad Bar Association’s decision not to represent the accused in the Ayodhya Ram Temple embezzlement case has raised questions over whether a Bar Association can collectively refuse legal representation to a particular accused. 

Constitutional Articles Related to Accused’s Right to be Defended

• Article 22(1): Guarantees that an arrested person has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.
• Article 14: Ensures equality before law and equal protection of laws.
• Article 21: Protects the right to life and personal liberty; the Supreme Court has recognised fair trial as part of Article 21.
• Article 39A: Directs the State to ensure equal access to justice and provide free legal aid so that no citizen is denied justice due to economic or other disabilities.

What do the Bar Council of India Rules Say?

• The Bar Council of India Rules state that an advocate is generally bound to accept any brief before courts, tribunals or other authorities where he practises.
• The advocate may charge a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case.
• An advocate may refuse a brief only in special circumstances.
• In Kuldeep Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand (2019), the Uttarakhand High Court clarified that such refusal applies to an advocate in his individual capacity.
• A Bar Association cannot collectively prohibit its members from appearing for a particular accused.
• An advocate’s right to represent an accused cannot be denied through threats such as removal from Bar Association membership.
• Therefore, while an individual advocate may refuse a case in special circumstances, a Bar Association cannot legally or ethically stop advocates from defending an accused.

Similar resolutions have been passed by Bar Associations in several high-profile criminal cases. 

• Ajmal Kasab Case, 2008: After the Mumbai terror attacks, Bar members opposed legal representation to Kasab, and a lawyer was appointed only under police protection.
• Delhi Gangrape Case, 2012: Lawyers at Saket courts passed a resolution refusing to represent the accused.
• Hyderabad Veterinary Doctor Case, 2019: Lawyers declined to defend the accused in the rape and murder case.
• Ryan School Murder Case, 2017: The Supreme Court held that the accused cannot be denied access to counsel and that the right to counsel must be protected to uphold the rule of law.

How Have Courts Dealt with Such Resolutions?

• Courts have consistently held that Bar Associations cannot prevent advocates from representing any accused, as such resolutions violate the accused’s right to legal representation and fair trial.
• In Kuldeep Agarwal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019, the Uttarakhand High Court declared such a resolution null and void and held that threats to remove a lawyer’s Bar membership for defending an accused are illegal.
• In 2020, the Karnataka High Court criticised the Hubballi Bar Association for opposing lawyers representing Kashmiri students and observed that even Ajmal Kasab was given a fair trial with legal representation.
• In Manikandan Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025, the Madras High Court reiterated that the Bar is not a trade union but an institution of constitutional significance, and it cannot decide who may or may not be represented in court.
• In J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka, 2014, the Supreme Court held that fair trial is the core objective of criminal procedure and includes the interests of the accused, victim and society.
• Thus, such Bar Association resolutions are unethical, unconstitutional and against the rule of law, as every accused is entitled to a free, fair, just and reasonable trial under Article 21.