'How Can A Woman Write Like This About Another Woman?' : Supreme Court Rebukes Lawyer For Post Against Rape Victim

The Supreme Court on Wednesday came down heavily on a woman advocate for publishing a Facebook post targeting another woman, who is the complainant in one of the rape cases registered against Kerala Congress MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering a writ petition filed by Advocate Deepa Joseph, apprehending arrest by the Kerala Police over her Facebook post.

At the very outset, the bench expressed its disappointment with the language and the tone of the post.

"Are you expected to write this type of language? You are an advocate," CJI Kant told Deepa Joseph, who was also present in the Court along with her lawyer Wills Mathew. Joseph replied that the contents of the post were based on the information given by the husband of the woman who made the rape allegation against the Congress legislator. "The husband approached me, and he is the one who informed me, and I posted according to that," she said.

Unconvinced, the Chief Justice asked, "Do we expect a practising woman advocate to write all these things?". The petitioner maintained that she did not write anything defamatory and did not disclose the identity of the victim.

Justice Bagchi said that the language was "most derogatory of a woman". CJI said 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?" CJI asked.

The petitioner's lawyer said that only the information given by the husband of the complainant was posted. The bench was not convinced by this response. "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?" CJI asked.

CJI further asked, "Did the husband engage you to write all this nonsense?" "It is not nonsense Sir," Deepa Joseph replied.

Justice Bagchi said that the petitioner was highlighting and publicising through litigation 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?" Justice Bagchi asked.

The petitioner's lawyer submitted that she is only seeking that the Police should comply with the directions regarding arrest. The bench said that the petitioner can approach the High Court for her relief.

"This is not the forum to examine this," Justice Bagchi said.  When Deepa Joseph requested that she may be heard "being a lady", Justice Bagachi retorted, "Being a lady, what sort of comments you have made about other women?"

"Had it been a man who had written all this nonsense, we would have got him arrested here itself," CJI said. 

The petitioner's lawyer requested that the police be asked to interrogate her virtually. The bench said that the petitioner can approach the High Court. The petition was dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Case : Deepa Joseph v. The Home Secretary of the State of Kerala | W.P.(Crl.) No. 50/2026