“We do not want them to loiter around and make the environment puerile” – Vibha Datta Makhija on the (anti) ML Sharma petition

Barely three weeks ago, the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association filed a petition seeking a bar on the entry of two lawyers ML Sharma and AP Singh in the Supreme Court premises. The petition was filed amidst the furore created by both these lawyers over their comments in a (subsequently banned) documentary based on the December 2012 gang rape of a physiotherapy student in New Delhi..The petition invoked Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, citing the need to protect the fundamental rights of women lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court of India, to work at the Supreme Court with dignity and without any gender bias. It further stated that,.“The comments made in the Documentary, “India’s Daughter” presented by BBC are inhumane, scandalous, unjustifiable, biased, outrageous, ill-minded and are a direct affront to and in violation of the dignity of women, especially the women practicing in the Supreme court of India. These comments have caused a sense of insecurity, indignation and fear amongst the female lawyers practicing in the Supreme Court of India.”.Praying for restricting the entry of both the lawyers, the petition had also demanded from them a public apology, retraction of their statements and a strict directive from the Court to refrain from issuing any such public statement which is derogatory to women and is a direct breach of their dignity. In fact, a similar demand had been made via an online petition, one that garnered close to 3,00,000 signatures..Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija appeared for the petitioner before a Bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and C Nagappan, arguing that the Supreme Court ought to ‘lead from the front and adopt a zero tolerance approach towards such views’. She had further submitted that ‘we need an environment where we can be fearless.’ The Bench had issued notice to both lawyers and sought for their response, while noting that.We find that the matter requires consideration as certain important legal contentions are raised in the instant petition..Makhija spoke to Bar & Bench and explained why this issue ought to be ‘firmly placed under a public scanner’..Excerpts from the interview..Bar & Bench: The petition says that the comments made by both lawyers (ML Sharma & AP Singh) are a ‘direct attack against the dignity of women’. But such comments came from the defense counsel of the accused and were with specific regard to the circumstances of that particular case..Vibha Datta Makhija: See as a defense counsel when you make legal arguments, those arguments have to be based on constitutional values. When you cross constitutional boundaries, where you are in blatant disregard of the basic principles of the Constitution or what the Constitution mandates, then you cross a line. Therefore, by and large you do get into the realm of attacking, in this particular case, the dignity of women. Gender equality is guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore any act, overt or covert, which hampers that equality, under any circumstances would amount to violating of constitutional principles. And in those terms, I certainly feel that [the comments] attacked the dignity of women..Bar & Bench: Any apprehensions of this case being termed as ‘publicity interest litigation’..Vibha Datta Makhija: That is irrelevant to the issue. These are issues that have to be raised and that is why they come under the public scanner. I think it’s inevitable that [such comments] would come under the public eye..Bar & Bench: The petition prays for restraining the said lawyers from the Supreme Court premises..Vibha Datta Makhija: We have not asked for a complete ban. What we have asked for is “restricted entry” in the premises. What we are saying is that persons who are not conducive to the work environment, their entry should always be restricted. For e.g., in the case of Nisha Bhatia, the Hon’ble Chief Justice has banned her entry from the Supreme Court. Why? Because she created a hostile environment. In similar terms, we also feel that these persons create a hostile environment and especially for women when they hold such dramatic views about them..Bar & Bench: But these lawyers have been around in Court for quite some time now, without causing any harm..Vibha Datta Makhija: Yes, that is true. Which is why we are not asking them to not to come and practice. What we are saying is that they can come, do their matters and go back. We do not want them to loiter around in the Court and make the environment puerile..You can read the complete petition below.