By: Adv. Shashank S. Narvekar
Councillor, Mapusa Municipal Council
The legal fraternity in Goa recently witnessed two significant developments. The first was the Chief Minister’s public remarks concerning the professional fees charged by advocates. The second was the unfortunate assault on an advocate, which rightly drew immediate condemnation from various advocates’ forums across the state.
No one can dispute that an attack on an advocate is an attack on the justice delivery system itself. The prompt response of the advocates’ forums in condemning such an incident deserves appreciation, as it reflects unity and solidarity within the legal profession.
However, another question continues to trouble many members of the legal fraternity.
Following the Chief Minister’s remarks on advocates’ fees, it is learnt that representations were submitted by several advocates’ forums expressing their concerns. If such representations were indeed made, why were they not shared with the public through the media? Why were they not published with the same urgency and visibility as the statements condemning the assault on an advocate?
This contrast naturally gives rise to questions. Was the legal fraternity expected to remain silent when its professional dignity was questioned? If representations were made, why were advocates and the general public not informed? Transparency strengthens institutions, while silence often creates room for speculation.
Many advocates may reasonably wonder whether there was an attempt to avoid creating a public perception that the legal fraternity was unhappy with the statements made by the government. With elections approaching, some may question whether this silence was influenced by political considerations. Whether that perception is correct or not, the absence of public communication inevitably creates doubts and invites unnecessary speculation.
Independent advocates’ forums must not only function independently but must also be seen to function independently. Public confidence depends upon openness, consistency, and the courage to speak on issues affecting the profession, irrespective of who is in power.
If advocates’ forums can promptly issue press statements when an advocate is physically attacked, they should be equally vocal when the collective reputation and professional dignity of advocates are publicly questioned. Both issues concern the independence, respect, and integrity of the legal profession.
While the assault on an advocate deserves unequivocal condemnation, it is equally important for the legal fraternity to uphold the fundamental principles of the justice system. Every accused person has a constitutional right to legal representation and a fair trial. Therefore, in the present assault case, if the accused approaches any local advocate for legal assistance, no advocate should be criticised, blamed, or subjected to pressure for accepting the brief. An advocate who represents the accused is not supporting or justifying the alleged offence but is fulfilling a professional and constitutional obligation. The independence of the legal profession lies in the freedom of every advocate to accept a brief without fear, favour, intimidation, or public backlash. Protecting this principle is essential to preserving the rule of law and ensuring that justice is administered fairly and impartially.
The legal profession has historically stood as one of the strongest pillars of democracy. Its representative forums must remain fearless, transparent, and accountable to the advocates they represent. Any perception that these forums are influenced by political considerations, whether justified or not, can weaken the confidence of advocates and the public alike.
The issue, therefore, is not merely about one statement or one representation. It is about preserving the independence and credibility of the forums that represent advocates. Democracy flourishes only when institutions discharge their responsibilities without fear, favour, or political influence. Silence on matters affecting the dignity of the legal profession should never become the norm, for it is transparency and principled leadership that ultimately strengthen both the legal fraternity and democracy.
