VHP criticises Faizabad Bar Association’s resolution, says it violates constitutional principles and legal ethics

Published 30 June 2026 · india

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Tuesday (June 30, 2026) criticised the resolution passed by the Faizabad Bar Association barring advocates from representing persons accused

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Tuesday (June 30, 2026) criticised the resolution passed by the Faizabad Bar Association barring advocates from representing persons accused in the alleged theft of donation from the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple, calling the move unconstitutional and contrary to professional ethics. The Bar association has also reportedly imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh on any lawyer who chooses to represent the accused. Condemning the same, VHP president Alok Kumar argued that such a resolution runs contrary to established legal principles and cited the Supreme Court’s 2011 judgment in A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu. In that case, the top court examined the legality of bar association resolutions preventing advocates from appearing for particular categories of accused.

Referring to the judgment, Mr. Kumar, who is also a practising lawyer, noted that the Supreme Court had observed that several Bar associations across the country had, on different occasions, passed resolutions refusing legal representation to accused persons, including police personnel, terror suspects and those charged with heinous offences. The Supreme Court had held that such resolutions were “wholly illegal, against all traditions of the Bar, and against professional ethics”, observing that every person, regardless of the nature of the allegations against them, has the right to legal representation. The court further stated that it is the duty of a lawyer to defend an accused person and declared such resolutions to be null and void.

Citing the Constitution The VHP also cited Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees that an arrested person shall not be denied the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. It further referred to the Bar Council of India’s Rules on Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, which state that an advocate is generally bound to accept a brief in courts where they practise, subject to limited exceptional circumstances. The organisation maintained that while it has “no sympathy” for those accused of stealing offerings from the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple, denying them legal representation would be both unlawful and unethical.

It called for the investigation to be completed expeditiously, the case to be tried in a fast-track court, and, if found guilty, the accused to be punished at the earliest. Expressing hope that the Faizabad Bar Association would reconsider its reported resolution, the VHP urged the body to take into account the Supreme Court’s ruling, which had directed that copies of the judgment be circulated to Bar associations and State Bar Councils across the country.