Almost a thousand lawyers from across the country have distanced themselves from the Resolution dated 22.12.2019 issued by the Bar Council of India, condemning the participation of lawyers in the protests of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 by issuing a Response to the Resolution today.

Senior Advocates Akhil Sibal, Chander Uday Singh, Colin Gonsalves, Darius Khambata, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Huzefa Ahmadi, Indira Jaising, Janak Dwarkadas, Kamini Jaiswal, Kapil Sibal, Madhukar Rao, Mahalakshmi Pavani, Mohan Katarki, P.V. Surendranath, Rajiv Patil, Rebecca John and Vrinda Grover, are a few of the advocates who have signed the Response and repudiated the Resolution of the BCI.

The Response to the Resolution states that the BCI does not represent the views of the Bar and advises it against from issuing such statements as it is merely a statutory body that governs all the advocates in India and is mandated to safeguard the credibility of the legal profession.

"While the individual office bearers of the BCI are free to express their opinions in their personal capacity, the use of the BCI's platform to express the personal views of some is a disservice to the principles that the BCI stands for."

The Response goes on to state that it was evident that the Resolution does not speak for all advocates as many have spoken out against "not only the disparate impact of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 on minorities, but also the excess of police forces." Advocates had also conducted a protest march outside Jamia Milia Islamia University on 21.12.2019 against the attacks on the students of the University by Delhi Police.

The Response chastises the usage of the term "illiterate ignorant mass" denoted to lakhs of citizens who have been exercising their democratic right to protest – "It does not benefit the stature of the BCI for such statements to be made." The fact that the Resolution expresses solidarity with the police and armed forces, and does not deem it fit to express solidarity with Advocate Mohd. Shoaib who has been detained in Lucknow or the hundreds of advocates fighting to uphold the tenets of the Constitution, has also been acknowledged by the Response.

"The Advocates Act, 1961 envisages certain duties that the BCI must fulfill. These include laying down standards of professionalism and ensuring the highest degree of legal education in the country. Respectfully, the BCI's role is to ensure that law and procedure take the proper course, and not to embolden impediments to justice, especially by State entitites. Excessive and unnecessary deference to the State is unbecoming of the BCI's standing. When allegations of grave abuse of State power are involved, it is not for the BCI to pass judgement either way."

The Response also addresses the issue of the Resolution's call for advocates to convince people to not partake in the protests as the matter is sub-judice. It states that the pendency of a challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not take away the right of the citizens to exercise their democratic and constitutional right to protest against the Act as well as the police excesses. The Response concludes with the statement that "we urge the BCI to perform its statutory duties in a non-partisan manner and to refrain from expressing opinions that may prove detrimental to the people's faith in the justice system."

Click here to download statement

Read Statement







