Lawyers in lawless land?

MUMBAI: Raj Thackeray’s warning to lawyers against defending Tuesday’s train blasts accused has split the legal fraternity.

Addressing his party’s meet called to pay homage to blast victims this Sunday, the firebrand Thackeray even threatened to organise protests against the lawyers if they come forward to defend the accused.

When asked to comment about his “anti-professional” stand, Raj defended by asking: What will these lawyers do if they face a similar situation at home? Family or profession; what would be their choice,” he asked. According to him, the attacks on Mumbai’s suburban trains should be seen as an attack against our society as a whole.

“How can one defend the perpetrators of this heinous crime,” he asked. Raj’s argument has not convinced everyone. Though a section of lawyers has supported his move, a sizeable number of them have not liked the idea. Eminent lawyer, Majid Memon, categorically said that he was not party to any such decision, nor would he back it.

According to him it would be premature to take such a decision when nobody has been arrested in connection with the blasts. Some of his fellow professionals seem to have a different opinion. A group of leading criminal defence lawyers including Ashok Sarogi —who is defending Abu Salem — Shirish Gupte, Manjula Rao and Nitin Pradhan, have decided not to defend any of the accused, as and when they are traced, in the July 11 serial blasts case.

Mr Pradhan said he had personally taken a decision not to handle any case related to the July 11 blasts. He was withdrawing from the 1993 bomb-blasts case too, others refused to comment on this issue. Some lawyers recalled how a similar suggestion was made after Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984.

“Some of us were even accused of being anti-national for defending Ms Gandhi’s assassins,” a lawyer recalled. He thinks there is more emotion than discretion in this kind of demand. “Can the society blindly be allowed to trust police when they hold someone responsible and produce him as an accused”,” another lawyer asked.

But according to Mr Sarogi, the decision was taken at an informal meeting. However, Mr Pradhan said he was not aware of any such meeting and he had not consulted other lawyers in this regard.