Preventing a lawyer from representing a client is Violation of Constitutional Rights : Supreme Court
In a decisive verdict that resonates with the principles of justice and fairness, the Supreme Court today nullified the Mysore Bar Association’s resolution that barred its members from representing a specific client. The bench, led by Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, strongly asserted, “Preventing a lawyer from representing a client is an affront to the lawyer’s professional freedom and the client’s fundamental right to legal representation.”
The pivotal legal issue addressed was the challenge to the Mysore Bar Association’s resolution dated March 16, 2019, which aimed to restrict its members from filing vakalatnama for the petitioner, Rupashree H. R. This action was scrutinized under the lens of Article 32 of the Constitution, focusing on the fundamental rights to legal representation and the practice of one’s profession.
The case stemmed from a unique situation where the Mysore Bar Association passed a specific resolution denying legal representation to Rupashree H. R. This led to a significant legal battle, questioning the extents to which professional bodies can control the choices of their members and the rights of individuals seeking legal aid.
Delving deep into the resolution’s implications, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. The judgment emphasized that the Bar Association’s resolution overstepped its bounds, infringing upon fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The absence of the Mysore Bar Association from the proceedings, despite repeated notices, was also noted by the Court.
The Court’s decision to allow the writ petition led to the annulment of the challenged resolution, reinforcing the constitutional guarantee of legal representation. The ruling signifies a reaffirmation of the rights of both legal practitioners and those seeking justice.
Date of Decision: February 12, 2024.
Rupashree H. R. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors
