A Legal Perspective on the Durg Bar Council’s Refusal to Represent an Accused Child Assailant
The Tragic Incident
In the heart of Chhattisgarh's Durg district, a chilling crime unfolded during the vibrant Navratri festival. A six-year-old girl, visiting her grandmother's home in Om Nagar for a Kanya Bhoj ritual, fell victim to her 24-year-old uncle, Somesh Yadav. The young girl was sexually assaulted, murdered, and her body concealed in the trunk of a neighbor's car. Registered at Mohan Nagar Police Station under crime number 133/25, the case invokes serious charges: sections 137(2), 103(1), 64(2)(F), 65(2), 66, and 238(A) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alongside section 6 of the POCSO Act.
Community Outcry and Courtroom Dynamics
The victim, a member of the Yadav community—a group known for its strong presence in Durg—sparked widespread fury. Rallies echoed with demands for justice, led by Pritam Yadav, general secretary of the Chhattisgarh chapter of Akhil Bharatvarshiya Yadav Mahasabha. The community called for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe and pressed the Durg collector for Rs. 50 lakh in compensation and a government job for the victim's mother.
Amid this unrest, the Durg District Bar Council, under President Neeta Jain and Secretary Ravi Shankar Singh, took a bold stand: no lawyer from their ranks would defend the accused, citing the crime's monstrous nature.
Forensic Insights
Early medical findings painted a grim picture. The girl's body bore burn marks, initially thought to be cigarette burns, hinting at torture. Yet, Durg Additional Superintendent of Police Sukhnandan Rathore offered a different theory: the marks might be blisters from the stifling heat inside the car where the body was hidden. A Special Investigation Team (SIT) continues to probe, awaiting the final post-mortem report to clarify the extent of the assault and injuries.
Political Firestorm
The case ignited a political maelstrom. The opposition Congress party, decrying a collapse in law and order, set effigies of Chief Minister Vishnu Deo Sai ablaze in Raipur, Durg, and Rajnandgaon. They demanded the resignation of Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Sharma, who oversees the Home portfolio, arguing that women's safety has plummeted under his watch. The Chhattisgarhi Mahila Samaj joined the chorus, condemning the crime and urging a ban on websites promoting pornography. Public sentiment leaned heavily toward one outcome: the death penalty for the accused.
The Durg Bar Council's decision to boycott the accused's defense raises profound questions about justice, ethics, and constitutional rights.
The Bar Council's Refusal: A Legal Quandary
The Durg Bar Council's decision to boycott the accused's defense raises profound questions about justice, ethics, and constitutional rights. Let's unpack the implications.
The Right to a Defense
India's Constitution is unequivocal: Article 22(1) ensures that every arrested person can consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice. Article 39A further commits the state to provide free legal aid for those in need. The Supreme Court has reinforced this principle time and again.
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court mandated legal aid for indigent defendants. In Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012), even a convicted terrorist received counsel to uphold the trial's fairness.
The Bar Council's refusal risks subverting this right, potentially tainting the trial's legitimacy. A conviction without proper defense could invite appeals, arguing a breach of due process.
Ethical Duties of Lawyers
The Bar Council of India Rules, rooted in Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, compel lawyers to accept cases unless conflicts of interest or other valid reasons arise. The Durg Bar Council's stance, while fueled by moral revulsion and community pressure, lacks such justification.
Past cases, like the 2012 Delhi gangrape, saw similar boycotts, but courts stepped in, appointing legal aid lawyers to preserve justice. The Durg decision, though emotionally resonant, could erode the legal profession's commitment to impartiality.
Broader Implications
The boycott mirrors public outrage but threatens the judiciary's credibility. A fair trial hinges on both sides presenting their case, ensuring convictions rest on evidence, not emotion. Courts may counter this by appointing an amicus curiae or legal aid lawyer, as seen in prior high-profile cases.
The Supreme Court, in Re: Arundhati Roy (2002), warned bar associations against actions that obstruct justice. Meanwhile, reports suggest BJP MLA Rikesh Sen has assembled a team of five Supreme Court lawyers, though whether they will defend or prosecute remains unclear.
Paths Forward
To navigate this crisis, several steps are essential:
- Court Action: The judiciary should appoint a legal aid lawyer or amicus curiae to represent the accused, safeguarding constitutional protections.
- Bar Council Clarity: The Bar Council of India must issue guidelines prohibiting collective refusals to represent clients, except in cases of clear ethical conflicts.
- Public Dialogue: Legal bodies should engage communities, explaining that defending an accused does not equate to endorsing their actions but upholds the rule of law.
Reflections on Justice
This tragedy in Durg lays bare the fragility of safety for India's most vulnerable. The Bar Council's refusal, while a cry against inhumanity, clashes with the bedrock principle that everyone deserves a defense. The protests, political clashes, and calls for harsh punishment reflect a society in pain, but justice cannot bow to fury.
The judiciary must steer this case through due process, ensuring the accused faces trial with counsel, so the outcome—whatever it may be—stands on the firm ground of fairness.
Sources
Author : Zinan Ahmed
Media Team: Budding Forensic Expert
