He has openly accused the judge of being partial and having compromised on his judgment which is a serious charge and not somethig that should not be taken lightly since it makes ordinary people lose faith in the judiciary system. Other than that talking about killing , even if it is his own daughter is not something that should be taken lightly...

In such a case, will the judge take any action on his own. That's a technical question and I am not sure how the judge will act. But I don't think the lawyer had any reason to be so hyper. After all, pronouncing the judgement was just a formality.

The judge could take action on the spot. But he chose to ignore. Now it is too late to take action for contempt of court. The advocate's behavior is being criticized. The Bar council is also thinking of cancelling his licence.

Why is it late? There are three months for any party to appeal in a high court. Does‘t the same apply in this case too? I will really like to see what action does the Bar Council take now.

I think contempt of court is an action taken by concerned judge immediately, since the judge let it go so no more action against lawyer but bar council can still take action against him.

He has openly accused the judge of being partial and having compromised on his judgment which is a serious charge and not somethig that should not be taken lightly since it makes ordinary people lose faith in the judiciary system. Other than that talking about killing , even if it is his own daughter is not something that should be taken lightly...

In such a case, will the judge take any action on his own. That's a technical question and I am not sure how the judge will act. But I don't think the lawyer had any reason to be so hyper. After all, pronouncing the judgement was just a formality.

The judge could take action on the spot. But he chose to ignore. Now it is too late to take action for contempt of court. The advocate's behavior is being criticized. The Bar council is also thinking of cancelling his licence.

Why is it late? There are three months for any party to appeal in a high court. Does‘t the same apply in this case too? I will really like to see what action does the Bar Council take now.

I think contempt of court is an action taken by concerned judge immediately, since the judge let it go so no more action against lawyer but bar council can still take action against him.

Next day he said that if my daughter spend time with boy friends in night I will burn her. Who give him right to burn his daughters. He also added other parents also follow me.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude![/quote

I agree. But entry to a profession including law is not affected by ideological leaning of a man. we may disagree with the advocate but his views do not disqualify him for the profession.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

Who knows, we might soon hav another news piece about him. That is somethign the Bar Council is looking up pretty seriously, I guess.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

Who knows, we might soon hav another news piece about him. That is somethign the Bar Council is looking up pretty seriously, I guess.

I hope those news are good because such outrageous comments coming from a person who has vowed to uphold the law will only embolden those who are criminally and mentally inclined to break those very laws. His comments may advocate criminal action against him, but he is definitely passing the wrong message to everyone.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

Who knows, we might soon hav another news piece about him. That is somethign the Bar Council is looking up pretty seriously, I guess.

I hope those news are good because such outrageous comments coming from a person who has vowed to uphold the law will only embolden those who are criminally and mentally inclined to break those very laws. His comments may advocate criminal action against him, but he is definitely passing the wrong message to everyone.

As far as my understanding goes the right to sue - the cause of action is an important aspect in criminal offences. Here it lies with her daughters and none can usurp that for them. It is also important to stress that he was talking about a hypothetical situation.

True that he was talking about a hypothetical situation but still it was a very outrageous comment and really shows how much gender biased he is and that should disqualify him from his profession which requires an impartial and unbiased attitude!

Who knows, we might soon hav another news piece about him. That is somethign the Bar Council is looking up pretty seriously, I guess.

I hope those news are good because such outrageous comments coming from a person who has vowed to uphold the law will only embolden those who are criminally and mentally inclined to break those very laws. His comments may advocate criminal action against him, but he is definitely passing the wrong message to everyone.

Exactly my thoughts ! You have to be responsible when you make such statements esp when it involves a case that has been so gruesome and made everyone angry...The lawyer is insinuating that Nirbhaya was such a girl who went out with her boyfriend at night and may be had pre marital sex etc and that she deserved what she got...Thats what he is trying to say !