Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) International President Alok Kumar on Tuesday, 30 June sharply criticised the Faizabad Bar Association's decision to deny legal representation to the eight accused in the Ram Temple donation embezzlement case, calling the move “grossly inappropriate” and “in contravention of the basic principles of justice.” The VHP chief simultaneously demanded strict punishment for those found guilty of siphoning off temple offerings, drawing a clear line between defending due process and condoning the alleged theft.

VHP's Stand on Legal Rights

Alok Kumar said the Bar Association’s pledge to deny the accused any legal assistance violates constitutional practices and strikes at the core of professional ethics. “This proposal appears more political to me,” he said in remarks to reporters. He emphasised that depriving any accused of legal counsel is not merely an ethical lapse but a constitutional violation, regardless of the gravity of the alleged offence.

Kumar invoked a landmark precedent to buttress his position. He recalled that in 2011, in a case involving Mohammad Rafi before the Supreme Court, the Coimbatore Bar Association had similarly resolved not to represent a particular accused. “The Supreme Court disagreed with that resolution. It referred to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees every person the right to defend themselves in court. The court had said that any such proposal to deprive the accused his right to seek justice is against the law, against the Constitution and against morality,” Kumar noted.

No Sympathy for the Accused, But Justice Must Prevail

The VHP president was equally emphatic that his defence of due process should not be mistaken for sympathy toward the alleged wrongdoers. He stated plainly that he holds “no sympathy” for those who stole from the temple, describing the incident as ‘deeply painful’ and a betrayal of the trust of devotees. He demanded that the perpetrators face the “strictest punishment” for siphoning off offerings made to the deity.

This comes amid a broader controversy over the embezzlement of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, which has drawn widespread public outrage. The VHP, as a key stakeholder in the temple’s construction movement, finds itself in the unusual position of defending the legal rights of those accused of defiling the very cause it championed.

What the Faizabad Bar Association Decided

Following the unravelling of the alleged theft, the Faizabad Bar Association announced that no lawyer would represent any of the eight accused in the embezzlement case. According to the Association, any lawyer who chose to appear on behalf of an accused would be required to deposit ₹5 lakh per accused into the Association’s fund — a financial deterrent widely seen as a de facto boycott.

The decision has ignited a debate over legal ethics and the rights of the accused in high-profile, emotionally charged cases. Legal experts have pointed out that such Bar resolutions, however well-intentioned, have historically been struck down by courts as incompatible with constitutional guarantees.

Broader Implications

Notably, this is not the first time a Bar Association in India has attempted to collectively deny representation to an accused in a case that has provoked strong public sentiment. The Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling in the Coimbatore matter set a clear precedent that such resolutions cannot override Article 21 rights. Legal observers argue that the Faizabad Bar’s move, while reflecting community outrage, risks being struck down on the same grounds if challenged.

With the case now drawing national attention, the courts are expected to ensure that the accused receive due legal process — regardless of the Bar Association’s stance.