AP Singh, who unsuccessfully defended two of the four accused in the trial court in the December 16 rape case, seems to have lost his bearings
It is remarkable how just a statement or two from a person can reveal his character of a lifetime or at least his mindset of the moment. The country had known little about AP Singh until September 13. But on that day and in the next few hours, everyone knew how insensitive and foolish he is. By way of introduction, Mr Singh is a lawyer who defended two of the four accused in the gang rape of December 16 last. As a lawyer he had the right to defend and the accused the right to be defended. But soon after a trial court sentenced the four accused to death, Mr Singh erupted like a volcano, spewing venom directly on the judiciary (he alleged that the verdict was politically motivated and was not based on sound law) and indirectly on the victim who died days after she was brutalised by the gang.
This gentleman, who is evidently well-educated and conversant in law, appears to have lost out somewhere in life in picking up the basics of decency. Sample what he said after the sentencing: “If my daughter was having premarital sex and moving around at night with her boyfriend, I would have burnt her alive. I would not have let this situation happen. All parents should adopt such an attitude.” To say that these remarks smack of a patriarchic mindset is to be kind to him. Only a demented mind is capable of such an outburst. In any case, we are not concerned with what he would want to do to his daughter if she were to engage in pre-marital sex. We don't know if he has a daughter. If he does, she will have to scourge for reasons to be proud of her father post-September 13.
In the larger context, what Mr Singh said is an endorsement of ‘honour' killing. Someone please tell: Isn't there a provision in the law to book a person — a person of law at that — who makes such outrageously provocative remarks which fly in the face of the Supreme Court's various observations that ‘honour' killing is illegalIJ Please do something about this man before he translates his words of menace into action in some form or the other.
There is indeed something fundamentally wrong with Mr Singh, and the Bar association concerned must proceed to cancel, not merely suspend, his licence to practise. According to some reports, the lawyer-cum-loose cannon had even questioned, during the hearings of the case, the character of the victim — and he was severely reprimanded by the judge. This is another instance of the lawyer not knowing about or deliberately ignoring the directives of the apex court that the character of a victim in cases of crimes against women cannot be the basis to further an argument, either by the defence or the prosecution. If he gets away with such mischief and insensitivity, it will set a bad precedent. Worse, it will embolden others in Mr Singh’s mould to adopt similar obnoxious behaviour.
Does he understand the agony of the victim's family — her father, mother, brotherIJ He is moved to tears by the death penalty to his clients, but does he not have the slightest bit of anger for what the brutes that he represented stand convicted ofIJ If he did, he would not have behaved with such crassness. But then, how can we expect any understanding from a person who boasts that he will set his daughter on fire if she were to move around with her boyfriend late in the night or have physical relations with himIJ Mr Singh's place is not in the courtrooms where laws are meant to be respected, but among those Khaps that promote barbarity.