In England, the rule has been called the ‘cab-rank’ rule, according to which a barrister is ‘to accept any brief to appear in a court in which he professes to practise’, irrespective of the client, the nature of the client and any belief or opinion which the barrister may have formed as to the character, reputation, cause, conduct, guilt or innocence of that person. The principle is provided for in the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales. Lord Irvine QC has explained it as the duty of the advocate to “appear for the Yorkshire ripper or another defendant against whom there may be a hostile climate of public opinion”. The purpose of the ‘cab-rank’ rule is “to acknowledge a public obligation based on the paramount need for access to justice”. It is to be noted that a similar rule is there in the Australian legal profession. The American bar has a diluted version of the same.

Unfortunately, in India, the absence of the ‘cab-rank’ is weakening the fabric of rule of law. Today’s advocates are identified with the cause they serve and consequently, as advocates selectively choose whom they represent. The public perceives them as endorsing the character, views, reputation and conduct of the clients. Consequently, society also decides who ought to be defended. A lawyer choosing not to appear for a client because of alleged acts committed by him, his conduct, character, cause and reputation is a gross violation of professional ethics. The consequences of granting such liberty to other professionals are catastrophic.

... contd.