Ram Temple donation theft case: Why is the lawyers' boycott controversial?

The alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya has sparked a legal and ethical debate beyond the criminal investigation itself. The controversy intensified after the Faizabad Bar Association resolved that its members would not represent the accused in court, prompting the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) to oppose the decision on the grounds that every accused person has a constitutional right to legal representation. Here's what the case is about and why the lawyers' boycott has become a matter of debate.

What is the case?

The case relates to the alleged embezzlement of cash and valuables donated by devotees at the Ram Mandir. An investigation by Uttar Pradesh Police led to the arrest of eight individuals associated with counting and handling temple donations. They have been remanded to judicial custody as the probe continues.

The investigation has also examined how donations were received, counted and deposited. As part of the probe, police questioned senior trust functionaries, including former general secretary Champat Rai.

Who are the accused?

According to police, the eight arrested persons were involved in the handling and counting of temple donations. Investigators allege they were linked to the misappropriation of cash and other offerings made by devotees. The investigation is ongoing, and no court has determined their guilt.

What did the Faizabad Bar Association decide?

The Faizabad Bar Association resolved that:

None of its members would represent the eight accused.
Any member who chooses to defend them would face a penalty of ₹5 lakh.
The association also demanded action against certain temple trust functionaries and announced plans to seek a wider investigation.

The association said its members' religious sentiments had been hurt by the alleged theft of temple offerings.

Why has the VHP opposed the boycott?

The VHP criticised the decision to prevent lawyers from appearing for the accused, calling it both "unethical" and "unlawful."

VHP International President Alok Kumar, who is also a senior advocate, said:

-Every accused has a constitutional and legal right to be represented by a lawyer.
-Denying legal representation is contrary to established legal principles.
-Lawyers should not be prevented from accepting briefs in criminal cases, irrespective of the allegations against the accused.

At the same time, the VHP has demanded:

-A speedy investigation.
-Strict action against anyone found guilty.
-Day-to-day hearings through a fast-track court.

Is refusing to represent an accused legally permissible?

Indian law recognises an accused person's right to legal representation.

Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees that a person arrested has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice.

Similarly, Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 provides that a person accused of an offence before a criminal court has the right to be defended by an advocate of their choice.

Courts have repeatedly held that organised boycotts by bar associations cannot override an accused person's legal rights.

Has this happened before?

Yes. The Faizabad Bar Association said it had taken a similar decision in 2005, following the terrorist attack on the then makeshift Ram temple, when local lawyers declined to represent the accused. Eventually, an advocate from Lucknow appeared for them.

The investigation into the alleged Ram Temple donation theft is ongoing, with all eight accused currently facing judicial proceedings. Police are examining financial records, donation handling procedures and other evidence to determine the extent of the alleged misappropriation.

Meanwhile, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) has reiterated its demand for a speedy and impartial investigation, while maintaining that the accused must not be denied their constitutional right to legal representation.