The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed strong disapproval of a Facebook post authored by a practising advocate in relation to a woman who has levelled rape allegations against Kerala Congress MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a writ petition filed by Advocate Deepa Joseph. In the petition, she sought protection from arrest by the Kerala Police in connection with the post.
Court Questions Language Used in Post
At the outset, the Bench conveyed its dissatisfaction with both the tone and the language of the post. The Chief Justice directly questioned the petitioner, asking whether such language was appropriate for a practising advocate.
Deepa Joseph, who was present in Court along with her counsel, stated that the contents of her post were based on information allegedly provided by the husband of the woman who filed the rape complaint against the legislator. She maintained that she had posted what was conveyed to her.
The Bench, however, did not find the explanation persuasive. The Chief Justice asked whether a woman advocate was expected to write in such terms about another woman. Justice Bagchi described the language as highly derogatory towards a woman.
The Chief Justice further remarked that he was surprised that a woman could write in such a manner against another woman and noted that the petitioner had used extensive language without expressing regret. He also indicated that the Court could read out the contents in open court.
Bench Unconvinced by Defence
Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the post reflected information shared by the complainant’s husband. The Chief Justice responded by questioning whether confidential information shared with an advocate could be placed in the public domain.
He further asked whether the husband had engaged the petitioner to write what he described as objectionable material. The petitioner responded that she did not consider the contents objectionable. She also asserted that she had neither defamed anyone nor disclosed the identity of the complainant.
Justice Bagchi observed that the petitioner appeared to be using the litigation to highlight and publicise a particular narrative. He asked whether the petition had been filed to vindicate legal rights or to advance a viewpoint that might border on culpability.
Court Declines to Entertain Plea
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that she only sought compliance by the police with established legal safeguards relating to arrest. The Bench, however, stated that the appropriate forum for such relief would be the High Court.
Justice Bagchi clarified that the Supreme Court was not the forum to examine the issue in the present proceedings. When the petitioner requested to be heard “being a lady,” Justice Bagchi responded by questioning the nature of the comments made by her about another woman.
The Chief Justice remarked that if a man had authored similar content, the Court might have taken stronger action.
The petitioner’s counsel also requested that the police be directed to conduct interrogation virtually. The Bench declined to entertain the plea and dismissed the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court for appropriate relief.
Case Details
Case Title: Deepa Joseph v. The Home Secretary of the State of Kerala
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 50 of 2026
