Law is supposed to be noble profession, says SC after coming to know that Bilkis Bano case convict is lawyer
New Delhi, August 24
Noting that law is supposed to be a noble profession, the Supreme Court on Thursday expressed surprise over one of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape case practicing law following his premature release last year.
“Post-conviction, whether licence to practise can be given? Law is supposed to be a noble profession. Bar Council (of India) has to say whether a convict can practise law. You are a convict, there is no doubt about that. You are out of jail due to the remission granted to you. Conviction remains only if the sentence is cut short,” a Bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna said.
The top court’s comments came after advocate Rishi Malhotra, representing Radheshyam Shah, one of the 11 convicts released prematurely by the Gujarat Government last year, said that after the release his client has resumed his legal practice.
“Today, almost a year has lapsed and there has not been a single case against me. I happen to be a lawyer at a motor accident claims tribunal. I was a lawyer and I have again started practising,” Malhotra told the Bench which also included Ujjal Bhuyan.
“Law is supposed to be a noble profession,” the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, and voiced surprise over how can one of the convicts in the Bilkis Bano gang-rape case and murder of her family members during the 2002 Gujarat riots practise law after his conviction, the remission of his sentence notwithstanding.
The matter came to court’s notice when advocate Rishi Malhotra, defending the remission granted to Radheshyam Shah, one of the 11 convicts who were released prematurely, told a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan that his client has served over 15 years of actual sentence and that the state government gave him the relief after taking note of his conduct.
“I am not sure about that,” Malhotra said about the legal position.
According to Section 24A of the Advocates Act a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude cannot be enrolled as an advocate. It says that disqualification for enrolment shall cease to have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his release or dismissal or removal.
