A.S.
MOHAMMED RAFI VS STATE OF TAMILNADU 6 DECEMBER
2010
PETITIONER:
A.S.
MOHAMMED RAFI
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF
TAMILNADU REP BY HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
BENCH: HONBLE
JUJDGES/CORAM MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISHRA JJ
CITATION: AIR -2011 SC 308 92011) 1 SCC 688 (2011) 1 SCC (Cri.) 509
Criminal Appeal no.
- 2310 of 2010
LAWS INVOLVED : Article 142 ,21, 22 (1) of Indian Constitution Right ,1949
HISTORY OF THE CASE:
In 2010 in the State of Tamil Nādu
there were regular instance of numerous clashes between the Bar and the Police.
As a result of such mispenning’s some of the lawyers were assaulted by certain
policemen.
The
matter between them worsened and a criminal case was filed against the
policemen in the court, for assaulting the lawyers and against the illegal
means that they had adopted when the matter was to be tried in the Coimbatore
Bar Association would defend, he accused police officers before the court for
the criminal case brought against them.
A special leave petition was
subsequently filed in the Supreme Court of India, against the resolution passed
by the Bar Association of Coimbatore that no member of the concerned Bar
Association of Coimbatore would defend the accused police officers in the
criminal case filed against them.
FACTS:
A.S. Mohammed Rafi was a lawyer and
member and member of Coimbatore Bar Association. Due to a brain tumour, he had
surgery, having improved right eye vision and impaired hearing in his right
ear, he was also facially paralyzed.
On
the 14 Oct 2006, Mohammed Rafi and a lady constable Satyabhama were waiting for
a bus. While boarding the bus, they dashed each other.
Satyabhama
then badly assaulted Mohammed Rafi and filed FIR against him. Blaming modesty
police refused to take Mohammed Rafi’s FIR even though he was assaulted badly,
injured and got Hospitalised. Meanwhile, The Bar Association Coimbatore passed
a resolution that no advocates will defend policemen in criminal court cases.
ISSUES:
Whether
Bar Association passing resolution exhorting lawyers not to accept briefs from person
is null and void?
JUDGEMENT:
Court
directed sum of rupees 1,50,000/- (Rs One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) be
given to the appellant by the State of Tamil Nadu as compensation. As appellant
had already receive a sum of Rs 50,000/- (Rs Fifty Thousand only), the
remaining sum of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rs One Lakh Only) be paid by the State of Tamil
Nadu to the Appellant within two months.
Such resolution is holly illegal
against all tradition of the Bar and against professional Ethics every person.
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.
The
Supreme Court established that the remedy of compensation in policing under
Article -32 or Article 326 of Indian Constitution is available in public law.
It is based on strict liability for the violation of fundamental rights.
The
Court asked the lawyers to abandon the practice of strike and Boycott.
No comments:
Post a Comment