Over 900 lawyers disagree with Bar Council on protesters

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

In its December 22 resolution, the BCI had stated, “Leaders of the Bar and young students are requested to take active role in defusing the disturbances and violence in the country: We are to convince the people and the illiterate ignorant mass, who are being misled by some so-called leaders [that] the matter with regard to Citizenship Amendment Act is under the consideration of the Supreme Court, therefore everyone should await the decision…”

In their response, the group of lawyers stated, “It is clear that the Resolution does not speak for all advocates as various statements have been released by sections of the Bar condemning not only the disparate impact of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act on minorities but also the excesses of police forces.”

Pointing out that the BCI resolution stated that damage to public property and violence against police personnel are serious issues, the lawyers maintained, “While there is no dispute with regard to this, the deaths of more than 25 people including minors (as on 24.12.2019), the use of excessive and disproportionate force against protesters, minors being detained and beaten, and the widespread use of arbitrary internet shutdowns are also grave issues.”

They stated that 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 entities. 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 judgment either way.”

It stated, “pendency of the challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not, in any manner, take away from the right of citizens to exercise their democratic and constitutional right to protest — either against the Act itself or against State excesses relating to the Act.”