It seems that Deepika Rajawat has not taken the recent application by Kathua gang rape and murder victim’s father withdrawing his power of attorney issued to her and also making it clear that she is no longer her advocate, very well. The victim’s father cited her non-appearance as the reason for making this application. She was questioned from several quarters on the social media about this and the application was seen as a move expressing displeasure on the part of the victim’s family towards her. Now, Deepika Rajawat who was initially at the forefront as an advocate in the family’s quest for justice took it to social media in order to defend herself and also express a sense of surprise at the application withdrawing the power of attorney.
The Print stated that according to another lawyer, Mubeen Farooky, appearing for the victim’s family, the application was moved by the victim girl’s father, as Deepika Rajawat had “no time” to appear in the Kathua case. In fact, in the present case she only appeared twice in last several months. According to The Print, he also said, “More than 110 hearings in the Kathua case have taken place and more than 100 witnesses have been examined. But Rajawat has appeared in the case only twice. She has been claiming that she is receiving life threats because she has to appear in the Kathua case. It was decided that it is best to relieve her of this responsibility.”
Now, Deepika Rajawat seems to be defending herself by stating, in a Facebook video, that since two public prosecutors had already been appointed in the trial that is being conducted in the Pathankot Court and things seem to be going well, she was no longer needed there. She also stated that such cases are prosecuted by the state and the private advocates do not have much of a role to play. She also cited other professional and private commitments as some of the reasons due to which she could not appear before the Pathankot Court regularly where the trial is going on. However, what must be noted is that in the initial phase of this video, she expressed a sense of disappointment that even after passing a crucial stage in the present matter, the victim’s father has now filed an application before the court to withdraw the power of attorney. She also tweeted, “I was there with them when no one was. Now since the rainy days have passed, they are winding up with me just because I could not regularly attend the trial which is taken care of by senior criminal lawyers. I don’t blame them. It is the human tendency which travels in genes.” It seems that in the garb of blaming the “human tendency”, she was actually expressing a sense of disappointment towards the application made by victim’s father.
The way she has been defending herself and also expressing displeasure at the application for withdrawing her power of attorney, goes on to show that she has not taken it particularly well. She also seems to be have been disenchanted by the fact that she has been questioned by several social media users about being highly inconsistent in her appearances before the Pathankot Court. She also shared a video by The Quint on her Twitter handle, in which Rajawat seems to be claiming that the father of the victim may have been misguided and can also be seen giving reasons for not being regular in appearing before the Court. Moreover, the argument that since public prosecutors are appearing in the case and private advocates have no role to play, is also a half baked truth. It is not denied that in criminal cases, the public prosecutors conduct the trial because these are wrongs committed against the society at large and not only against an individual. However, under Section 301 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a pleader so instructed by an private person can act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor. Therefore, even though there is a minimal role to play, private advocates may be engaged to play, at least, the role of assisting the public prosecutor.