A move that underscores how national integrity outweighs even the highest professional commitments.
Doda, September 18:
Senior Advocate Nirmal K. Kotwal’s decision to withdraw from the high-profile Public Safety Act (PSA) case of AAP legislator Mehraj Malik has become more than a legal development; it is being read as an ethical and almost epic statement of values.
In his press release, Mr. Kotwal explained that certain serious allegations surfaced only after he had agreed to join the legal team. These included claims that the accused had allegedly refused to recognise Jammu and Kashmir as part of India and was linked to the glorification of militants such as Burhan Wani and Masood Azhar.
Kotwal said these details were not disclosed to him at the time of his engagement, and once they came to light, he felt that continuing would compromise both his conscience and his professional ethics.
A Parallel from the Mahabharata
The episode evokes a powerful scene from the Mahabharata’s Kurukshetra battlefield. Lord Krishna, who had vowed not to take up arms, once lifted his weapon when Arjuna faltered in his duty. Arjuna rushed to stop him, reminding Krishna of his promise.
Krishna’s response was clear: when the protection of dharma is at stake, even breaking one’s own vow becomes an act of dharma itself.
This ancient lesson—that the larger cause of righteousness can demand a sacrifice of one’s own word—resonates in Mr. Kotwal’s action. Just as Krishna placed dharma above personal commitment, Kotwal placed national interest above professional engagement.
Beyond Professional Ethics
Critics have asked why Kotwal accepted the case initially and why he chose to go public instead of quietly stepping aside.
Supporters argue that in a high-profile case of national significance, silence would have invited speculation and even accusations.
Legal experts believe this decision could set a precedent for others in the profession to draw a line when their work inadvertently risks strengthening anti-national activities. It highlights the need for advocates to not only follow the letter of professional ethics but also to weigh the moral consequences of their representation.
He also highlighted a vital principle of legal ethics: an advocate must act with a mind, word and deed aligned to conscience. When his mind was no longer at peace after learning of the alleged anti-national statements, continuing the defence would itself have been a breach of professional integrity.
National Interest Above All
Advocate Suneet Thakur, member of the BJP’s Doda executive team, endorsed Kotwal’s stand, calling it “absolutely correct when the question of the nation arises.” Thakur noted that when one’s own conscience and professional duties clash with the larger good of the country, “the nation must always take priority.” He further added that Mehraj Malik’s case was already weak, with multiple FIRs and a dossier highlighting alleged promotion of narcotics and praise of terrorism, making Kotwal’s decision both timely and justified.
Kotwal’s stand reminds us that the very existence of professional ethics presupposes the nation’s sovereignty and stability.
Without the nation, there is no constitution, no bar, no profession.
In affirming that “nation comes first”, he has signalled that when national unity is questioned, no blank cheque or professional prestige can outweigh the duty to the country.
In the end, Nirmal K. Kotwal’s withdrawal is not merely a lawyer’s tactical exit.
It is a modern-day echo of an epic truth: to protect dharma, one must sometimes break even one’s own vow—because the higher vow is to the nation and to righteousness itself.