ML Sharma

In the ongoing hearing of appeals by the four convicts in the 2012 Jyoti Singh Delhi rape and murder case in court No 4 in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, convict Mukesh’s controversial counsel, ML Sharma, was making submissions on the evidentiary value of DNA

The Centre on Friday told the Supreme Court that the chargesheet in the AgustaWestland helicopter deal will be filed this year and the matter is being investigated by an SIT

In the ongoing hearing of petitions seeking the right to worship for women devotees of the Sabarimala temple before a Justice Dipak Misra-led three-judge bench this afternoon at Court No.4, senior counsel KK Venugopal, while arguing for the temple board, said women could not be recruited to be fielded in the frontline of armed forces, because they lack courage.

An uninterested bench of the Supreme Court of India has asked a bystander advocate to provide his stenographer to advocate ML Sharma to help him type his suggestions to the court in a dubious case the bench had not showed much interest in.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a PIL seeking a CBI probe into the citizenship row of Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi.

Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy dismissed the PIL filed by lawyer ML Sharma, saying PILs cannot be individual-centric.

The court also questioned the petitioner about the authenticity of the documents he had placed before the court.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hold an urgent hearing of a PIL seeking CBI probe into the allegation that Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi had declared himself a British national in the documents filed before the registrar of companies in Britain.

“There is no urgency in the matter,” the bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu said as PIL petitioner advocate Manohar Lal Sharma mentioned the matter for an urgent hearing.

Sharma urged the court to direct the CBI to investigate the matter and submit the report of its investigation only to the apex court.

Accusing Rahul Gandhi of becoming the Lok Sabha member by holding back the information that he was once a citizen of Britain, Sharma said it amounted to cheating with the electoral process.

Sharma said no one with foreign nationality could become the member of any legislature in India.

Sharma also sought to know when Rahul Gandhi gave up his British citizenship and had acquired the Indian nationality.

The petitioner has also sought direction to the Election Commission that it should ask every candidate aspiring to contest election to file an affidavit stating that he or she is a citizen of India and same should be backed with documentary proof.

Senior general counsel (GC) could earn Rs 80 - 300+ lakh per annum, revealed a recruiter, adding that generally pay in-house was still lower than in private practice.

Meanwhile our feature in Mint revealed that GCs may not be the only ones holding the purse strings though when it comes to the bitter fight initiated by law firm lawyers against chartered accountants (CAs): if the CFO is powerful in a company, they’re more likely to brief a CA firm than a law firm, claimed one GC.

Likewise, we spoke to a bunch of CAs, GCs and law firm partners about whether it was fair for Society of Indian Law Firms (Silf) to go after the CA firms for transactional advice, which may or may not be legal.

Read: Lawyers vs CAs: Who would win a professional death match?

Also, the Supreme Court is in the throes of a series of death penalty appeals and petitions. Ram Jethmalani clashed with SG Ranjit Kumar over the commutation of the Rajiv Gandhi assassins’ death penalties before a constitution bench.

Things were quicker for Yakub Memon, whose curative petition failed in the Supreme Court yesterday, which means that the accountant to 1993 Mumbai bombers could get executed on 30 July (unless death penalty lawyers can rely on young jurisprudence or create a new loophole at the 11th hour).

Memon’s public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam celebrated the judgment, though Saurav Datta wrote earlier that day in The Quint that Nikam regularly lied, played to the media and otherwise behaves in a manner unbefitting a public prosecutor.

Sadly, new research data has confirmed that the death penalty is a deadly tax on poverty – more than 75% of death row inmates are poor or disadvantaged in India’s birth lottery.

Oh, and there’s a new round of indefinite strikes in the Delhi district courts about – yes, you guessed it - the increase in their pecuniary jurisdiction, which Parliament might get around to passing today.

Finally, ML Sharma – who recently unconditionally grovelled before the Supreme Court to file PILs again - has picked up the mandate for the Salman Khan victim’s mother’s transfer petition, reported the Indian Express. Sharma will try to move the Bollywood actor’s appeal from the Mumbai to the Delhi high court, because Maharashtrian judges allegedly love bhai too much.

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.