There is one problem: What if Kasab defiantly confesses? That poses a dilemma for the defence lawyer, but even so, the answer is not to deny him representation. The author (Salil) seems to think its the duty of the defence lawyer to persuade his client to completely deny his role , however weak his defence. I have very limited understanding of law, but this perception appears ridiculous to me. What does he mean by “defiantly confess”? The lawyer himself would have to perusade him to come clean and then try to make the best out of what is really an unsalvagable situation. However, i am completely with the author about his main argument that Kasab should be given a fair trail with access to a good defence lawyer. The bar association, by its jingoistic attitude, has made a complete mockery of the spirit of the profession.