AP Singh

High drama was witnessed in Court No 3 on Monday, September 14 when Justices V Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel assembled to hear Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association vs Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors, which came up at 2.15 pm.

Even as an association of female lawyers in the Supreme Court has petitioned the court to ban gang rape lawyers ML Sharma and AP Singh, they might end up getting away with allegedly inciting murder. But why not redraw the boundaries of adversarial litigation while we're at it, asks Saurav Datta.

PTI reported:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought response from two advocates, representing the 16 December gangrape convicts, against whom a women lawyers body has sought action for allegedly making derogatory remarks against women in a BBC documentary on the case. “We have heard the argument, pleadings and grievances urged in the petition. The matter requires consideration in view of the factual and legal submissions,” a bench comprising justices V Gopala Gowda and C Nagappan said.

The bench issued notices to the two advocates, ML Sharma and AP Singh, and sought their response in two weeks. The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association, in its petition, had sought restriction on the entry of the two advocates in the apex court premises, alleging that their remarks in the controversial BBC documentary were “inhumane, scandalous, unjustifiable, biased, outrageous, ill-minded” and are a “direct affront to and in violation of the dignity of women”, especially those practising in the Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association took umbrage at the comments of advocates ML Sharma and AP Singh in the documentary India’s Daughter and sought a ban on their entry into the apex court premises” by filing a petition before the court, reported The Times of India and others.

The petition stated:

The comments made in the documentary (by the two advocates) are inhumane, scandalous, unjustifiable, biased, outrageous and ill-minded and are a direct affront to and in violation of dignity of women, especially the women practising in the Supreme Court. These comments have caused a sense of insecurity, indignation and fear among the female lawyers practising in the Supreme Court.

The derogatory and insulting words used by Sharma make it clear that according to him women shouldn’t be allowed to go out after the time specified by him; they should have no choice of choosing persons with whom they want to spend time; they shouldn’t be allowed to befriend men; they should not be allowed to live their life as per their wish; that women shall forever be restrained from even thinking of being independent and maintain individuality.

Lawyer Nandita Saikia argues that the controversial BBC documentary on the Delhi gang rape, India’s Daughter, is flawed though no more than our society itself.

Advocates ML Sharma and AP Singh, who have represented the 2012 Delhi gangrape convicts and recently made controversial and misogynistic comments in a documentary that was banned in India, have been served with three-week show cause notices by the Bar Council of India (BCI), which deliberated on the issue yesterday until after midnight, reported the Indian Express and others.

BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said: “We have issued the show cause notices to ML Sharma and AP Singh for their alleged remarks made in the documentary.”

Earlier yesterday evening, Legally India reported that the Delhi bar council had also decided to serve show cause notices on both lawyers.

The Delhi bar council will take suo motu action against advocates ML Sharma and AP Singh, who made controversial comments in a documentary about the December 2012 Delhi rapists.

Gangrape lawyers ML Sharma, AP Singh might face BCI inquiry (again), promises BCI chairman MK Mishra.

The Delhi bar council complaint against the December 16 rape convicts’ lawyer AP Singh was transferred to the BCI, which on Saturday issued a show-cause notice to Singh, reported the Hindu.

Singh had made sexist remarks to the media outside the Saket trial court that had convicted his clients, claiming that he would burn his daughter alive were she to be found having premarital sex or going out at night with a boyfriend. He later claimed that he was provoked into his remarks.

The BCI is examining whether his comments can attract the charge of “professional misconduct” under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.