New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly criticised a woman advocate for a Facebook post targeting the complainant in one of the rape cases registered against Kerala Congress MLA Rahul Mamkootathil.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Deepa Joseph, who sought protection from arrest by the Kerala Police over the social media post.

At the outset, the Bench expressed serious concern over the language and tone of the post. “Are you expected to write this type of language? You are an advocate,” CJI Kant told Joseph, who was present in court along with her counsel Wills Mathew.

Joseph said the post was based on information shared by the complainant’s husband. “The husband approached me, and he is the one who informed me, and I posted according to that,” she submitted.

The Chief Justice, however, remained unconvinced. “Do we expect a practising woman advocate to write all these things?” he asked. Joseph maintained that she had neither written anything defamatory nor disclosed the identity of the alleged victim.

Justice Bagchi described the language used in the post as “most derogatory of a woman”. The CJI remarked that he was surprised that “a woman can write like this against another woman”. “You have not spared a single word in your dictionary. And still you are not regretting. Should we read out in public what you have written?” he asked.

When Joseph’s counsel argued that the post merely reproduced what had been conveyed by the complainant’s husband, the Bench questioned the propriety of making such information public. “If the husband has come forward to you and confided in you since you are an advocate, then you will put that confidential information in the public domain?” the CJI asked.

He further queried, “Did the husband engage you to write all this nonsense?” Joseph responded that it was “not nonsense”.

Justice Bagchi observed that the petitioner appeared to be using the litigation to highlight and publicise a particular narrative, which the court deprecated. “Are you fashioning this litigation to enforce your rights or to publicise a particular point of view which may be bordering on culpability?” he asked.

Joseph’s counsel clarified that the plea sought compliance by the police with legal safeguards governing arrest. However, the Bench said the appropriate forum for relief was the High Court.

“This is not the forum to examine this,” Justice Bagchi said. When Joseph sought to be heard “being a lady”, Justice Bagchi responded, “Being a lady, what sort of comments you have made about other women?”

The CJI added, “Had it been a man who had written all this nonsense, we would have got him arrested here itself.”

A request by the petitioner’s counsel to permit virtual interrogation was also declined. The court dismissed the petition, granting liberty to Joseph to approach the High Court for appropriate relief.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)