After the huge uproar on the ban by the Government of India on the BBC Documentary “India’s Daughter”, the widely criticized defence lawyers A.P. Singh and M.L. Sharma (advocates for Delhi gang-rape case) have invited for themselves, a legal battle in the Supreme Court of India. In a Writ Petition filed by the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association, it was, today prayed before the Supreme Court for banning the entry of the aforesaid lawyers in the apex court and it sought their apology.
Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija appearing for the Association stated before the apex court that these types of comments by the defence lawyers bring shame to the legal fraternity and they promote insecurity among the female lawyers.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the both the abovementioned advocates and sought a reply returnable in two weeks, in respect of the writ petition filed against them. Although he is yet to give a formal reply in the apex court, Mr. M.L. Sharma, one of the defence advocates, against whom notice has been issued, in an interview to a media house stated that the BBC journalist had taken her interview for 10 days and had shown only one line, and that he is not guilty of any offence.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the Supreme Court Bar Association, respondent No. 5 to the writ petition, contended that the SCBA has unanimously resolved to take action against M.L. Sharma.
The petition has invoked the Fundamental Right provided by the Constitution of India for working in the workplace with dignity and without gender bias. The petitioner stated that there should be a safe and secure environment for the female lawyers in the country.
ML Sharma had received wrath for his controversial comments on the position of women in India.
Whereas, Mr. A.P. Singh had in 2013 stated that if his daughter or sister engage into premarital activities, he would take her to the farmhouse and in front of his family, he would set her ablaze using petrol. In the documentary, Singh has claimed that he stands by the statement made by him back then.
Recently, the Bar Council had even taken a suo motu action against these two lawyers and they had to reply within 3 weeks.
The State Bar Council is having power under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 to take action against the lawyer either on receiving a complaint or on a suo motu action. Once the State Bar Council is satisfied of some professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee.
According to Section 35 of the Advocates Act,
“35. Punishment of advocates for misconduct.— (1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee.
…
(3) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate concerned and the Advocate-General an opportunity of being heard, may make any of the following orders, namely:—
(a) dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State Bar Council, direct that the proceedings be filed;
(b) reprimand the advocate;
(c) suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deem fit;
(d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates.
(4) Where an advocate is suspended from practice under clause (c) of sub-section (3), he shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred from practising in any court or before any authority or person in India.”
Thus, the State Bar Council can either dismiss the complaint, reprimand or suspend the advocate, or remove his name from the State roll of advocates.
There have been previous instances where action has been taken against the lawyers by the Bar Council. In the BMW case, Senior Advocates RK Anand and IU Khan were issued a show cause notice by the Bar Council of Delhi in 2007, under section 35 of the Advocates Act. The Delhi High Court had banned these two advocates in 2009 for practicing for four months. Later, the Bar Council had stripped these two Senior Advocates of their designation.
The order of the Supreme Court issuing notice to the aforesaid two advocates can be accessed from here.
