On the evening of 16th December, 2024 , which marks the 12th year anniversary of the gruesome and brutal Nirbhaya Rape case , LawChakra hosted a live discussion with Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, aimed at bringing forth to the audience a discussion on why women safety still is at stake and the recent petition that has been filed by her in the apex court of the nation for the rising crimes against women and seeking certain reliefs for the same. She mentioned, that the petition seeks pan-India safety guidelines for the protection of women, children, and the third gender.
“India reports one rape every 16 minutes. The question is, why are vulnerable groups such as women, children, and the third gender not getting justice? Media highlights certain cases, but what about the others? After the RG Kolkata case, I pointed out that there were 94 rapes reported across the country. While some cases, like Ayesha or Franco Mulakkal, gain attention, the question remains: what about the rest?Even after introducing new laws, gang rapes continue to occur.”There are laws, rules, and stringent punishments in place, but the question is: are they being implemented?”
The discussion began with Ms. Pavani explaining her views on what her representative petition includes and how it is not only about the policy of laws that are laid down in the country but also about their implementation. In the discussion , Ms. Pavani specifically mentioned about the lackadaisical approach in the implementation of the laws. Further she mentioned a very necessary point which was
“Even if the POCSO rape cases are there, death penalty is given by the fast-track court. What happens next is ? Bail is given”
Moving forward in the discussion , she mentioned about the petition she has recently filed before the apex court saying that,
“So, I had filed this after the RG Kolkata rape case. And I mean, because of the defects, and all of it, it happened to come today, December 16, which happens to be the 12th anniversary of Nirbhaya. So, the Nirbhaya rape took place 12 years ago on the road. The Abhaya rape took place in the workplace this year. And there are many ‘Abhayas’ and ‘Nirbhayas’ happening at home also.”
So, what is it that should be looked into. What is the petition I am seeking? I am seeking a pan-India safety guidelines. Why? I want to say porn is the theory, and rape is the practice. There is misuse and abuse of pornography , I am seeking a ban on free online pornography because it is freely available and its statistics have revealed that porn is one of the cause for, you know, the sexual urges. And you know, I am not talking about Delhi, Bombay. I am talking about the 2 tier and 3 tier cities of our country where there are women you know who are unsafe“
Discussing upon stringent laws , we asked , Ms. Pavani that , “There have been large discussion in various, you know, segments of society on these topics. And largely it has been said that these things are in violation of, for example, Narco analysis and other such tests, they sometimes stand in conflict with Article 20 and when we talk about, a blanket ban on pornography, it has been said that this stands in contravention of certain provisions of Article 19 that there are certain movies which are wrongly categorized and it will give a lot of power to certification boards and how will it be found that what is pornographic as this is just an expression of speech via art?
To this Ms. Pavani answered ,
See you are talking about self incriminating and there’s Article 23 of the Constitution. Then you are talking about your freedom of expression, freedom of thing and things likethat, for instance, in Kaushal Kishore versus State of UP, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in 2023 has said the right to freedom and speech of expression under Article 19 one is not absolute and must be exercised responsibility. Citizens must refrain from making vitriolic, derogatory or unwarranted statements which harm others dignity.The right to free speech does not protect statements that attack the rights of dignities.
The Internet world is so small. It brings people closer to everyone. So what I am seeking is you want to watch porn. You’re welcome to watch porn, but pay for it. So when you pay, let it be into your UPI card. You let you give you give your aadhaar card details, let the payment go from your bank. There has to be some regulatory mode. It should not be available like that, you know,you watch it because what happens is see, men will be men whatever said and done , but we have to take some action because porn is killing children.
Raising her argument on Sex education being the need of the hour , she emphasized on the need for the same, she said , that it is necessary to make the young minds aware and putting the ball in the court of the parents she said ,
“If you can’t talk, have a psychologist or have a person who gives these kind of talks, who’s not embarrassed to, you know, talk, make these kind of talks or address children on these issues ,because adolescents, they are growing curious minds, young minds, impressionable minds. They need to be taught, you know, they they are given free handsets there. They can do anything they want. I mean, and and how do you control these pop up ads and things like that?”
Next argument that was raised by us was , that “It has been seen that, you know, very, very strict punishments do not act as a deterrent, but largely the perpetrators, you know, choose to murder their victims. They do not leave the victims just by putting, you know, trying to scare them or after threatening, threatening them. They just, kill them in the sense to just protect themselves”
To this , Ms. Pavani answered in the affirmative by giving an example where a man raped a girl at gunpoint and carried a can of acid and threatened her, saying, ‘If you say anything, I will pour this acid on your face and end you.’ She further went on to explain the pros of chemical castration as deterrent to such practices such as rape and murder, she said,
“It is practiced in countries like the USA, Russia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, and Germany. Yet, in India, even with a population of 145 crores, if 10 offenders are chemically or surgically castrated, it will have some positive impact, especially on repeat offenders. It could initiate a deterrent effect“
In an argument , against the capital punishment , Ms. Pavani , categorically mentioned,
“Capital punishment should also be awarded without unnecessary delays. Currently, the system wastes taxpayers’ money and judicial resources—filing a case, going through High Court, Supreme Court, review petitions, and then mercy petitions with the President. By the time justice is served, the purpose is frustrated, and public faith in the judicial process diminishes.
Even in cases where capital punishment is finally awarded, I feel sad. Perpetrators commit heinous crimes against children, women, and the third gender—do the victims deserve this? Where are the so-called human rights activists when these crimes occur? They seem to disappear when victims are suffering agony and pain”
Specifically mentioning about , “whether the judiciary can alone fix this issue?” , Ms. Pavani , said ,
” It’s more of a societal problem. The judiciary alone cannot fix this. Legislative and administrative agencies need to implement laws effectively. Often, corruption and orders from higher authorities interfere with justice. For example, a 21-year-old girl committed suicide because she couldn’t file an FIR for her rape. Under new laws, filing an FIR has become more complicated, and police often delay or manipulate cases, blaming the victim instead of addressing the perpetrator’s actions and who is to be blamed.
Before the FIR is registered , the police will satisfy himself, he will call up and try and find out and whoever, pays him more money, probably he will register their case. All the entire fault, It is of the woman, it is never of the man”
Picking up on questions and thoughts of the viewers, we asked Ms. Pavani , on her comments on the Bangalore techie case, where he committed suicide and he has left a suicide note and saying that maintenance law was used against him by his wife and that some of the laws that are for the benefit of women have been misused by them.
To this , Ms. Pavani stated that,
“In all honesty, I stand up for truth and justice. I don’t stand up solely for women, children, or the third gender. I also stand up for men who have been harassed. Take the case of Atul Subhash, for instance. He committed suicide, and while I don’t know if his soul will ever rest in peace, I believe that was not the answer. He was mentally distressed, and perhaps he saw no other way out.
However, he could have taken a different route—he could have moved the Supreme Court, brought forth everything he wrote in his 24-page suicide note, and presented it to the court. He could have said, “My Lords, I am being wronged.” The Supreme Court is well aware of the ground realities, and justice could have been pursued.”
“Educated women with financial means can afford the best lawyers and sometimes use the law as a counterblast to harass men. They may twist situations to their advantage and, in some cases, use children as tools for emotional blackmail. For instance, they might deny the father access to his child and file numerous cases to further pressure him.”
Next we raised a question regarding the morals and ethics of the advocates and whether it is necessary for the advocates to morally and ethically suggest women that come to them? To this Ms. Pavani , answered in affirmative stating ,
“Yes, there are ethics. There is the role of an advocate. He, what is his ethics to the client, to the duty. He has a duty to the client, to the court. So that is the reason I am suggesting, once the court finds that the allegations are baseless and all that, see first and foremost, if a huge fine or imprisonment of 3 years, rigorous imprisonment, is given to that woman who is coming up, the lawyers will hesitate even to file a case like that. So, you know, the number of cases will come down.
Next , we raised the question to Ms. Pavani stating that , “when we talk about these laws and discuss such strict actions, it is basically after seeing the current incidence of suicides and the exploitation of maintenance laws. People are genuinely very scared that if laws are made stricter, then women will get even more opportunities to exploit these laws“
To this , Ms. Pavani answered , that in order to resolve these issues we need gender neutral laws and a balanced approach. Specifically mentioning the Atul Subhash case she said,
“Atul Subhash’s case has now opened up a Pandora’s box or plot. People became aware of men committing suicide, and in 2021, there were 1,20,000 men who committed suicide because of matrimonial disputes. Does anyone know about that? Nobody does. Whether this case was on social media or put on Twitter, it woke India up. India needs a Nirbhaya moment to jolt it awake from its sleep to an awakening call. You understand?
And let me tell you, women are also battered—they are burnt alive, pushed, and forced to endure many hardships. Tell me, do those kinds of women go anywhere? There has to be a balance, right? Just because he committed suicide, I said, what about the women who have also committed suicide?”
She was asked that The debate around the misuse of laws such as Section 498A and maintenance provisions often raises questions about the judiciary’s role. However, Ms. Pavani mentioned , as highlighted, the judiciary is not solely at fault since it does not create laws—this is the legislature’s domain. Lawmakers are responsible for drafting policies that consider public participation and practical challenges, which could help mitigate misuse. The panelist emphasized that unfairly blaming the judiciary overlooks the responsibility of politicians and policymakers, who are the actual architects of legislation.
Next , a question was raised on the Atul Subhash suicide case, stating that there were a very big allegations made on the court as well that the judge, the ministry to sat in the court and the court staff that they took open bribery and you know ₹5,00,000 bribe was sought to settle the matter and it led to a lot of pressure on the person. So there were very big allegations that were made on the court procedure and the open bribery that goes in the subordinate judiciary
The panenlist refused to comment on the bribery issue and said , ” And he was an IT guy, a techie.He had enough money, he had a nice salary. He should have paid, if at all. Because I will tell you the grass, the fact, the hard stock realities, I sit in Supreme Court, how do you prove every fellow will say, ma’am, the other other advocate and my advocate, you know, they joined hands ,the judge took money from me , I mean, these are baseless.They are just speculations. What is the proof that he showed or put on paper to say that ? This judge asked me this. He could have reported to the Anti Corruption Bureau.He could have reported. Nobody prevented him from doing that.“
On media intervention in cases , the panelist pointed out how the media often focuses on gaining attention and TRPs rather than addressing real issues. While high-profile cases dominate headlines, many important cases from smaller towns go unnoticed. They also highlighted the judiciary’s efforts to step in when the legislature has failed, like the Vishakha Guidelines in 1997, which laid the groundwork for addressing workplace harassment. However, it took 16 years and the tragic Nirbhaya case to finally bring strong laws into place.
The panelist emphasized that the judiciary has played a key role in pushing for progress where lawmakers and administrators have fallen short. They stressed the need for both judicial and legislative actions to work together in a balanced way, focusing on the overall growth and welfare of the nation instead of serving limited or specific interests.
Ms. Pavani emphasized that the judiciary doesn’t intervene in every issue, but steps in when people approach the court, particularly when policymakers fail to act. For example, the judiciary’s intervention in the Vishakha Guidelines and workplace sexual harassment laws was crucial because lawmakers were slow to respond. Ms. Pavani defended the judiciary, asserting that it doesn’t overreach; instead, it responds when activists or citizens request changes that policymakers ignore.
Regarding laws meant to protect individuals, like maintenance laws, Ms. Pavani acknowledged that while they were initially created to provide protection, over time they have been misused. Society and circumstances have evolved, and the laws need to be updated accordingly to ensure they continue to serve their intended purpose. Ms. Pavani suggested that the government and lawmakers should be more proactive in addressing such changes, but until they do, the judiciary may need to step in.
Ms. Pavani was also , asked to express her thoughts on women in judiciary and their representation to which she answered,
I in 2004 appeared before a 5 judge constitution bench and I asked for gender parity on the bench.I said my Lords where is he said what is the person? Justice Kahar asked me. He said Mahalakshmi you come here and you are asking for gender parity on the bench. What do you think should be the percent 10%, 20%, 30%?I said no my Lords, 50% and I saw all the 5 judges faces fell.They looked at me like that. Why? And I said, why are we women not considered? We have the same brain, maybe not the same physical thing, but aren’t we there? We are not intelligent.
So and then Justice Kehar said that, “Mahalakshmi, there is nobody here. There’s not The parliament has not even given 33%” , I said, Lordship, please set an example. You take the lead, you live by example. You bring more women in the High Court and more women in the Supreme Court. You lead by example. But that’s it. My statement was not even recorded. My name doesn’t even appear there. So that is the sad state of affairs. It’s a patriarchal Mindset We have to deal with patriarchy at every level, at every step, at every level, be it the grassroot gram panchayat level or the Supreme Court level. Because I live in a man’s world.
Ms. Pavani was of the view that , “From the Supreme Court, if women practitioners go to any court in this country, the country will gain. They will make India proud because they are women practicing at the highest level, with many years of experience in drafting and arguing cases. If these women are not accepted by the courts, it reflects poorly on India’s legal system. Vacancies must be filled, and it’s not just women; there are also many deserving young men.
This is one way the pendency of cases can be reduced. At the end of the day, what do we want? We want a good system in place. Some people claim that the judiciary only works for money and power, but I beg to differ. Not everyone works for just money or power; there are human beings here. The person making such claims must be seeing only the tip of the iceberg, but there is no tip in the iceberg.“
As a concluding note, Ms. Pavani suggested that,
“Rome was not built in a day, so everyone should focus on hard work, dedication, and passion. They should not run after money. It takes time to reach where I have reached. It’s been a struggle and an uphill task, but don’t give up. People who want to go to law firms, please do, but for those who want to sincerely serve, there is a payback to society.My father-in-law always told me,
“Your client, Malakshmi, will be your anadata, but your unfortunate client, whom you never see, will be your bhagyadata. I just hope that patience, dedication, honesty, hard work, and focus should be the keywords to rise in this profession, putting yourself last and your country and countrymen before you.”
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on MAHALAKSHMI PAVANI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE INSIGHTS ON THE DISCUSSION