This is the first time that a lawyer has come forward to defend the five accused.

Take the Survey: Delhi gangrape: Then & Now

Advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, who claimed he was contacted by the accused' family members for defending them in the case, showed his willingness to defend the five.

However, the other advocates present in the court room warned him that he should not appear for the five accused, Ram Singh, Mukesh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta and Akshay Thakur as they are involved in a very heinous crime.

Awaiting the arrival of the accused, several lawyers and mediapersons were present in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate Namrita Aggarwal much before the scheduled time of hearing of 12:30 pm.

The courtroom was also occupied by a contingent of police personnel to control the crowd and any possible untoward incident which might take place.

The moment the accused were brought near the court room and the police asked the people to make way for them to enter.

However, the persons present there began shouting at the cops saying there are more policemen in the court than general public and lawyers taken together.

Meanwhile, the judge who entered the court room requested the advocates and the public present in the court room to make room for the accused to be produced but the people present in the court refused to do so and asked the judge to bring them inside so they can see their faces.

Faced with that kind of response from the people present in court, the judge left for her chamber saying "you advocates and the public) shout and till that time the accused will be not produced".

One of the advocates, V K Anand volunteered his services as amicus curiae in the case but this was opposed by members of an NGO, Pragatisheel Mahila Sangthan, which said no one should defend this kind of accused and shouted at the lawyer.

In a dramatic move, Anand lifted a small stool kept for keeping the advocates' books and banged it on the arguing counsels' table saying he will do as his conscience demands.

Saket Bar Association Vice President Arun Rathi intervened to prevent a fight from erupting in the court room.

After the situation was brought under control, the judge returned to the court and ordered that the hearing would be conducted in-camera and restrained the media from reporting the proceedings.

This order of the judge was later challenged by the lawyers in the court of District Judge R K Gauba who issued a notice to the Delhi Police and sought its response by January 9.

Saket Bar Assn's boycott is against professional ethics: Katju

New Delhi: Saket Bar Association's resolution that none of its lawyers will defend the accused in the Delhi gang-rape case is against all traditions of the bar and professional ethics, Press Council of India (PCI) chairperson Justice Markandey Katju said today.

In a post on his blog, Katju cited the court ruling in a case (A S Mohammed Rafi vs State of Tamil Nadu) that "every person, however wicked, depraved, or repulsive he may be regarded by society has a right to be defended in a court of law, and correspondingly it is the duty of the lawyer to defend him."

Revolutionaries in Bengal during the British rule were defended by lawyers, Indian communists were defended in the Meerut conspiracy case, Razakars of Hyderabad were defended, Sheikh Abdullah and his co-accused were defended and so were the alleged assassins of Mahatma Gandhi and Indira Gandhi, Katju wrote in his post.

Mumbai terror attack convict Ajmal Kasab had also been defended in the court, he pointed.

"No Indian lawyer of repute has ever shirked responsibility on the ground that it will make him unpopular or that it is personally dangerous for him to do so. It was in this great tradition that eminent Bombay High Court lawyer Bhulabhai Desai defended the accused in the INA trials in the Red Fort at Delhi," the former Supreme Court judge said.

Katju said the Constitution says that "No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice".

Professional ethics require that a lawyer cannot refuse a brief, provided a client is willing to pay his fee, and the lawyer is not otherwise engaged, he said.