Every advocate has the right to defend any accused in a court of law. Indeed, the legal profession rests on the solemn assurance that no person, however reviled, will be denied representation if they are willing to pay the prescribed fee. It is this promise that sustains faith in the justice system. An advocate is not expected to judge the client but to ensure that the law is properly applied. What the Supreme Court heard this week, however, was not about a lawyer defending an unpopular client in court. It concerned an advocate who approached the apex court seeking protection from arrest over a series of Facebook posts targeting a survivor in a rape case against a prominent Kerala MLA, Rahul Mamkootathil.
From courtroom to social media
The issue was not that the lawyer had appeared for the accused. That would have been entirely within her professional right. The problem lay elsewhere. Instead of confining herself to legal arguments before a competent court, she chose to launch a public campaign on social media, using language that the Supreme Court described as wholly unacceptable. According to reports, the posts referred to the survivor’s complaint in crude and demeaning terms, made obscene insinuations about her character and marital status, and even threatened to disclose her “private matters” publicly.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, did not mince words. “Are you expected to write in this type of language? You are an advocate,” the CJI reportedly asked. Justice Joymalya Bagchi added pointedly, “Being a lady, what sort of comments have you made about other women?”
Higher standards for the Bar
The Court’s rebuke was significant. It made clear that professional status does not confer immunity from accountability. On the contrary, it imposes higher standards. An advocate’s primary duty is to uphold the law and assist the court in arriving at the truth. If the lawyer believed the complaint was false, the appropriate course was to challenge it through legal arguments, cross-examination and evidence—not through a parallel trial on Facebook.
Freedom of speech has limits
Whether the survivor’s allegations are truthful or not is for the trial court to determine. Publicly vilifying her, threatening exposure and using deplorable language amount to something far removed from legal defence; they risk intimidating a complainant and undermining due process. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant protection from arrest, while leaving her free to approach the High Court, underscores an important principle: freedom of expression is not a licence for character assassination. Social media may tempt users into impulsive commentary, but the law’s boundaries do not disappear online.
This case is a reminder that the right to speak carries the duty to speak responsibly. For members of the Bar, that duty is even more exacting. Advocacy must remain within the courtroom and within the law. When it strays into slander, it becomes dereliction.
