In an era where legal victories are often measured only by outcomes, Advocate Mita Banerjee stands as a reminder that the true strength of the legal profession lies in ethics, conscience, and courage. Her professional journey reflects a rare but powerful principle — a lady of law never stands with a wrongdoer.
Law Is a Profession of Conscience, Not Compulsion
The law empowers advocates to represent clients, but it does not force them to abandon morality. Advocate Mita Banerjee has consistently demonstrated that no advocate is bound to defend criminality against their conscience. Her approach reinforces a foundational truth of the legal system: advocacy is a choice guided by ethics, not pressure.
She has firmly refused to take up cases where facts, conduct, or intent indicate criminal wrongdoing. This decision is not driven by fear or external influence, but by professional integrity. In doing so, she sends a strong message — legal expertise should never be misused to shield wrongdoing.
Upholding the Dignity of the Legal Profession
The cases and judicial observations reflected in recent legal records underline a critical aspect of advocacy: an advocate is an officer of the court first. Advocate Mita Banerjee’s conduct aligns with this principle, reinforcing that:
- An advocate is not obliged to accept every brief
- Professional independence is a protected right
- Moral judgment and legal skill must walk together
By declining to represent individuals involved in criminal acts, she upholds not only her personal values but also the dignity of the Bar.
A Lady Who Draws the Line
In a profession often dominated by pressure, influence, and power dynamics, Advocate Banerjee’s stance is particularly significant. A lady never stands with a wrongdoer — this is not merely a statement, but a lived principle in her professional life.
She has shown that: – Advocacy is not submission – Ethics are not negotiable – Silence or refusal can be more powerful than argument
Her refusal to align with criminal intent reflects strength, not limitation.
Judicial Backing: The Case That Reinforces Advocate’s Independence
The principles followed by Advocate Mita Banerjee are not merely personal beliefs; they are firmly supported by judicial precedent. The attached Calcutta High Court case records clearly reinforce that an advocate’s professional autonomy and ethical discretion are inviolable. This position finds support in reported Calcutta High Court decisions, including AIROnline 2022 Cal 1612 and AIROnline 2024 Cal 935, where the Court examined the scope of an advocate’s independence, professional judgment, and ethical boundaries.
In the matter before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, the Court examined circumstances where pressure, expectation, or allegations were sought to be imposed upon an advocate regarding professional conduct and choice of representation. The Court categorically recognised that:
- An advocate cannot be compelled to act against conscience
- Refusal to represent a party does not amount to misconduct
- Professional judgment is integral to the administration of justice
The Court underscored that advocacy is not mechanical representation but a role guided by responsibility, ethics, and independence. In AIROnline 2022 Cal 1612, the Hon’ble Court emphasised that an advocate is an officer of the court and not a mere mouthpiece of a litigant. The judgment recognised that professional autonomy and ethical judgment are essential to the justice delivery system and that an advocate cannot be compelled to act contrary to conscience or professional standards.
Further, in AIROnline 2024 Cal 935, the Calcutta High Court reiterated that refusal to accept or continue a brief, when guided by ethical considerations and professional discretion, does not amount to misconduct. The Court cautioned against attempts to browbeat or criminalise advocates for exercising independent judgment.
These observations directly align with Advocate Banerjee’s stand — that legal practice cannot be reduced to forced defence of criminality.
Advocate’s Independence Is Protected by Law
Judicial precedents clearly recognize that an advocate cannot be coerced, threatened, or morally compelled to represent a party against their will. Advocate Mita Banerjee’s decisions resonate with this settled position of law — the freedom of an advocate is intrinsic to the justice system.
Her conduct reinforces public trust by ensuring that the courtroom remains a space for justice, not manipulation.
A Message to Society and the Legal Fraternity
Advocate Mita Banerjee’s stand serves as a powerful reminder to society:
- Not every case deserves representation
- Not every client deserves advocacy
- Justice begins with ethical refusal
To the legal fraternity, her example encourages young lawyers — especially women — to lead with spine, values, and self-respect.
It is important to clarify that all facts, principles, and references mentioned herein are not based on opinion or narrative alone, but are duly supported by judicial records and documented case proceedings. Advocate Mita Banerjee’s professional conduct stands on record and scrutiny. At no point in her career has she defended, shielded, or attempted to save any criminal. Her refusals have consistently been rooted in conscience, ethics, and the settled position of law, reaffirming that her practice is guided by justice and integrity, not convenience or compromise.
Conclusion: Integrity Is the Strongest Argument
Advocate Mita Banerjee represents a class of professionals who believe that winning a case is secondary to standing on the right side of truth. Her refusal to defend criminality is not a denial of justice, but a reaffirmation of it.
In choosing ethics over convenience and conscience over compulsion, she proves that the strongest argument in law is not always spoken — sometimes, it is the courage to say no.