Legal Ethics and "Anti-National" Defense: A New Frontier?

My acquaintance with law is that of an ordinary resident in just respecting the laws and consequently I don't understand the complexities of the laws, except what I glean from news reports of famous legal cases and their judgements. And as a casual observer of the judicial system I also came to realize that there are mainly two types of lawyers namely "Civil Lawyers" and "Criminal Lawyers". I've also heard the term "Constitutional Lawyers," as sometimes certain major cases are argued before the Supreme Court's constitutional benches.

Categories of Lawyers

I Googled to find out what other categories of lawyers exist and I was just flabbergasted by the sheer number of lawyer categories I received in answer!  

Here is a list of them by just names, without the description and further sub-categories under each:

• Criminal Lawyer, Civil Lawyer, Family Lawyer, Corporate Lawyer, Intellectual Property (IP) Lawyer, Employment Lawyer, Labor Lawyer, Immigration Lawyer, Estate Planning Lawyer, Constitutional Lawyer, Environmental Lawyer, Bankruptcy Lawyer, Personal Injury Lawyer, Entertainment Lawyer, Civil Rights Lawyer, etc. 

• In addition to these, there are other specialized areas such as:
  Administrative Law, Admiralty/Maritime Law, Animal Law, Banking and Finance Law, Construction Law, Education Law, Health Law, International Law, Media Law, Municipal Law, Sports Law, etc.  

As you can see, there are too may of them, confirming my strong suspicion about my complete ignorance of the subject! 

A New Type Of Lawyers

Of late, we have been frequently coming across another type of lawyers, who may be characterized as "anti-national lawyers", since they defend the cases of those involved in anti-national activities and sedition. These are activities against the nation's or government's interests and include acts such as maladministration, corruption, extortion, spying, pollution, etc.  

Section 152 (BNS) covers "Acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India" and criminalizes acts that incite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, or encourage separatist feelings that threaten the country's stability. It also includes acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, as well as those using electronic communication or financial means. 

Copyright: Legal Baat

It's true that we haven't encountered the term "anti-national lawyers" in common discourse, likely because it's considered pejorative. However, this strikes as very inconsistent. If we readily accept the classification of "criminal lawyers" – who defend individuals accused of "criminal" activities – then by the same logical extension, why can't we term a group of lawyers who specialize in defending those involved in "anti-national" activities as "anti-national lawyers"? The parallel seems quite clear.

"Anti-National" Lawyers

What's truly remarkable, and indeed perplexing, is the absence of an official category called "Anti-national Lawyer." This is despite the recent proliferation of highly prominent and expensive legal professionals who specialize in defending activists and politicians accused of anti-national and traitorous acts. These are lawyers who defend individuals accused of "anti-national" activities, such as those charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) or sedition laws, or those involved in protests against the government.

A striking characteristic of these lawyers is their unwavering loyalty to this specialized niche. They readily defend not only high-profile figures but also ordinary citizens charged with anti-national activities, even when these individuals clearly cannot afford the six-figure fees such lawyers typically command. This raises questions about who funds their defenses in such instances and the underlying motivations. We haven't heard of many lawyers who take on cases pro bono (for free) due to their personal commitment to justice, human rights, or specific causes. It is true that in recent years, for high-profile cases involving activists, journalists, or students accused of "anti-national" activities, there has been a rise in crowdfunding initiatives and appeals for public donations to cover legal fees and related expenses.

It has also become a noticeable trend that the majority of individuals accused of anti-national activities frequently belong to a particular minority religious group. What's more striking is that these accused consistently seem to secure the services of these high-priced "Anti-national Lawyers" to argue their cases. Read about the recent example: Supreme Court to hear plea of Ashoka University professor against his arrest over post on Operation Sindoor

This pattern leads one to genuinely wonder: Is there an organized group or network providing financial assistance to these accused individuals, enabling them to afford the exorbitant fees demanded by these specific lawyers? If such a group exists, it raises a significant question about transparency within our legal system. Is there currently any legal provision in our judicial framework that would compel these "Anti-national Lawyers" to disclose the identity of the person or entity providing them with such substantial payments? The lack of clarity on who funds these defenses adds another layer of complexity to the perception of fairness and accountability in these sensitive cases.

Composition of the Higher Judiciary

Looking at the career history of some of these high-profile lawyers, it appears they gained their expertise by directly engaging in anti-national activities while holding powerful ministerial positions in previous Congress era governments, or by advising such ministers on how to proceed with various type of scams that are detrimental to national interests.

Consequently, another critical factor to consider is the very composition of our higher judiciary. Judges in both the High Courts and the Supreme Court are often drawn from the ranks of these same experienced legal professionals - a nexus that includes both what are broadly termed "Criminal Lawyers" and, more controversially, "Anti-national Lawyers." This raises questions about potential inherent biases or conflicts of interest given their past professional affiliations and experiences. The process by which these lawyers transition into judicial roles warrants scrutiny, especially when considering the implications for national security and the rule of law.

Consider the recent high-profile case of a judge where a substantial amount of cash was reportedly found in his home. Despite this, the judiciary, including members of the Supreme Court, has strongly protected the judge, with no First Information Report (FIR) even being filed.

The Counterpoint

A cornerstone of any democratic and just legal system is the principle that every individual, regardless of the accusation against them, has a right to legal representation and a fair trial. This is enshrined in most constitutions and international human rights treaties. Lawyers who take on such cases are upholding this fundamental right. Also, the legal system operates on the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the lawyer's duty to test the prosecution's case, ensure due process, and present the best possible defense for their client. 

By defending even the most unpopular clients, lawyers ensure that the state follows legal procedures, that evidence is legally obtained, and that no one is unjustly convicted. This strengthens the rule of law for everyone.

Many lawyers who represent individuals accused of "anti-national activities" are often human rights defenders themselves. They believe that such accusations can sometimes be used to suppress dissent, target marginalized communities, or silence critics of the government. Their work, in these instances, is driven by a commitment to civil liberties and constitutional values. The work of such lawyers is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the justice system and ensuring that the rights of all citizens are protected, even when they are accused of unpopular offenses.