Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 425 (AP)

Yelchuri Manohar v. State Of A. P.

2005-04-28

V.V.S.RAO

body2005
V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioner is accused No. 1 in S. C. No. 209 of 2004. He is charged with the murder of Revuri Sri Lakshmi on 21-6-2004. The case is not only a sensation but also a sensitive one. The case raked up emotions of large number of well meaning people of vijayawada City. Curiously Bezawada Bar association - whether it is professionally right or wrong; passed an unanimous resolution on 22-6-2004, resolving to deny a very valuable constitutional and fundamental right of accused to have the services of a trained lawyer. The same does not augur well for human rights. Be that as it may, in the background of expression of professional solidarity by the lawyers of Vijayawada, the petitioner who himself surrendered before p. S. Egmore, Chennai city moved this application under Section 407 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.) seeking transfer of S. C. No. 209 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila court, Vijayawada to any other competent court in any District. ( 2 ) THIS Court while admitting the petition stayed all further proceedings in S. C. No. 209 of 2004. The learned Public prosecutor of the State has now moved a miscellaneous petition for vacating the interim orders. In support of the said petition, he alleged that the accused No. 1 is being represented by Sri David Ratna Kumar, advocate and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are being represented by Sri Karanati Ram mohana Rao and, therefore, the transfer of the Sessions Case from the file of Manila court is not required. ( 3 ) THE matter was heard on 26-4-2005. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, sought time to get instructions in the matter having regard to the allegations made in the affidavit accompanying the petition for vacating the interim order. Today, after instructions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not able to deny the averments made by the Inspector of Police, North Circle, Vijayawada city in the affidavit accompanying the vacate petition. He only prays this Court to direct the concerned Court to expedite the criminal trial. There cannot be any objection for the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He only prays this Court to direct the concerned Court to expedite the criminal trial. There cannot be any objection for the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 4 ) BEFORE praying with this case, this Court is of considered opinion that a few observations about the role of the lawyers in continuously moving wheel of justice, are in order. Article 14. 3 of International Covenant of Civil and Political Human Rights and article 6 of European Convention of Human rights as well as various Human Rights conventions guarantee legal assistance in criminal cases to every citizen in the interest of justice. In Gideon v. Wainwright the U. S. Supreme Court observed that, "lawyers to prosecute are deemed essentially to protect the public interests in an orderly society. " It is also observed that it would be a breach of the fundamental right (of accused) to deny him representation by counsel even where the accused is facing trial for a minor offence. In galos Hired v. The King, Judicial Committee privy Council speaking through Viscount maugham emphasized the importance of the assistance of a counsel to an accused. It is a cart of Indian Constitutional Law that the right of a citizen to a legal counsel is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 read with Article 39a of the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) WHETHER lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycott of Courts? The question arose before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish uppalv. Union of India. While emphatically answering the question in the negative, the apex Court laid down as under. In conclusion, it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour armbands, peaceful protest marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot attend courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. It is held that lawyers holding vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot attend courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored. It is held that only in the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar and/or the bench are at stake, Courts may ignore (turn a blind eye) to a protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It is being clarified that it will be for the court to decide whether or not the issue involves dignity or integrity or independence of the Bar and/or the bench. Therefore in such cases the president of the Bar must first consult the Chief Justice or the District Judge before advocates decide to absent themselves from Court. The decision of the Chief Justice or the District Judge would be final and have not be abided by the Bar. ( 6 ) IF the enrolled members of the Bar owing allegiance to one Association decided not to appear for the accused in the given case, in a way it would also amount to boycott by the lawyers of such accused. Every person who is enrolled by the Bar Council must remember that he or she signs a oath before being given a licence to practice in the Courts. The said oath is to uphold the constitutional right and to abide by constitutional principles. If an Association decides not to appear for an accused in a given case, the same would amount to violation of such oath. ( 7 ) THE history of Bar Associations has number of examples where Bar Associations with justification boast of having such defence lawyers who defended accused in many notorious cases. By giving a call not to appear for an accused, Bar members would be deprived of reaching such greatness. ( 7 ) THE history of Bar Associations has number of examples where Bar Associations with justification boast of having such defence lawyers who defended accused in many notorious cases. By giving a call not to appear for an accused, Bar members would be deprived of reaching such greatness. However, heinous or evil or dastardly a crime might be, the great principle of civilized law is that "nobody shall be condemned without being heard and being heard through a legally trained advocate. " ( 8 ) THIS Court being the creature of the constitution as well as drawing sustenance and strength from the Constitution of India espousing the greatest human values even with regard to those pitiable, socially disorganized human beings involved in the commission of crimes - that too dastardly crimes; is anguished to know that the persons, entrusted with the noble duty of saving lives of the citizens, themselves deny the valuable rights of those for protection of whose rights, such persons exist. While observing this in a well meaning manner, this Court does not even remotely intend to undermine the great role played by the community of lawyers in protecting democracy and protecting the human rights of those citizens without whom there cannot be dynamic democracy nor dynamics of constitutionalism. These few words are recorded as sincere expression of anguish by the Court created under the constitution of India. ( 9 ) THIS petition is disposed of noticing the fact that the accused No. 1 (petitioner herein) is now represented by Sri David Ratna Kumar, a practicing lawyer of Vijayawada. The learned Sessions Court-Mahila Court shall forthwith fix schedule for trial of S. C. No. 209 of 2004 and complete the entire trial on day- to-day basis by the end of 31 st July 2005. All the accused and their lawyers, it is hoped, would cooperate with the Court in completion of the trial within the stipulated time.