A.P. Singh has been defending the 16 December convicts | Facebook: A.P Singh
A.P. Singh has been defending the 16 December convicts | Facebook: A.P Singh
Text Size:

New Delhi: For any death row convict, the scope of judicial remedy usually fades away with a review, curative or a mercy petition. But the four convicts of the 16 December 2012 gang-rape and murder — Mukesh Singh (32), Pawan Gupta (25), Vinay Sharma (26) and Akshay Kumar Singh (31) — have fought a sustained legal battle to escape the gallows, all thanks to their lawyer, advocate A.P. Singh.

While the battle has fizzled out, with the four having been hung at 5.30 am Friday, the Delhi-based lawyer had vehemently defended them through various stages of the legal process.   

He had filed multiple applications in various courts and even involved the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), all on the grounds that the death penalty isn’t an acceptable form of punishment.   

Even late Thursday evening, Singh had filed a challenge against Pawan Gupta’s mercy petition in the Supreme Court and a challenge in the Delhi High Court for Akshay Kumar Singh.

But Singh is a curious contradiction — a mix of somewhat progressive views and regressive ones.  

He had once said that if his daughter had “moved around with her boyfriend at night” and had “premarital sex” he would have doused her in petrol and burnt her. It was a reference to the circumstances leading up to the 16 December gang-rape.  

We are deeply grateful to our readers & viewers for their time, trust and subscriptions.

Quality journalism is expensive and needs readers to pay for it. Your support will define our work and ThePrint’s future.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

It earned him much flak in 2013 but years later, Singh is defiant, and stands by it.  

“We are Rajputs and for us honour is everything,” Singh tells ThePrint. “If your wealth is gone, nothing is gone; if your health is gone, nothing is gone but if your character is gone then everything is gone.”  

Singh, who was brought to the legal field by the controversial ‘godman’ Chandraswami, also played a key role in the bail granted to Swami Chinmayanand, the former BJP leader accused of sexual harassment.  

Singh says he had argued before the Allahabad HC that “both the girl and Swamiji had used each other and there was no coercion”. The high court later quoted this while granting bail to the former BJP leader. 

The advocate also harbours a goal to help start a movement that could lead to the establishment of a commission or a Ministry of Men. “Approximately 50 to 175 men commit suicide daily in India,” he says. “Most of them are tired of the women in their lives.” 


Also read: Final wish, last meal – Why remaining hours of Dec 2012 convicts will ride an emotional wave


The lawyer for the death row convicts 

For all his gender views, Singh had fought a prolonged battle for the 16 December gang-rape accused. He had attempted novel ways to ensure they escape the death penalty. 

Apart from the routine curative, review and mercy pleas, Singh is believed to be behind the petition that Vinay Sharma filed seeking better treatment for mental illness, schizophrenia and head, and arm injuries, the plea that Mukesh’s mother filed in the NHRC demanding an inquiry into Ram Singh’s suicide in Tihar jail and the divorce petition that Akshay’s wife filed in a local court in Bihar’s Aurangabad.

It has earned him criticism for delaying the process and trying to “take advantage of the 14-day window” but an unfazed Singh believes that this case has been one of ahimsa.

“The accused do not deserve the death penalty,” Singh tells ThePrint. “I read Mahatma Gandhi and it is clearly stated that the death penalty is a form of violence. There must be a chance of reformation for them. If Phoolan Devi, or other dreaded criminals can be reformed, then why not these children?”

But if Singh had had his way, he would never have been here. He says his initiation to the case only came about because of the perseverance of Punita Devi, wife of accused Akshay. According to Singh, a few days after the gang-rape of the 23-year-old physiotherapy student, Devi visited him at his old office in Deepali, Pitampura. 

He says that he refused the case citing media pressure and the very public nature of the trial. According to Singh, the next day she visited a plush farmhouse at GT Karnal Road where Singh’s mother, Vimla Singh, lives. 

It was Tihar Jail officials, according to one of Singh’s juniors, who had informed Akshay’s wife that Singh was very close to his mother and there was no way he would deny her requests. 

Devi not only managed to persuade Vimla Singh, then 63, but also got her to hand over her son’s vakalatnama to show that Singh would indeed be their lawyer.  

But even then, Singh says, it took some persuasion from his mother for him to agree to the case. Some of the members close to Akshay’s family maintain that once Singh began arguing in court, “Vinay too asked his parents to consider Singh” as the legal counsel. 

Before long he was the lawyer for all four convicts. 

The Chandraswami protege

Born in Delhi in 1972, Singh has been practicing for the last 23 years after having enrolled at the Bar in Lucknow in 1998. He graduated in law from Lucknow University and later went on to do a doctorate in criminology from the University of California.  

Singh’s initiation into the field of law was through the hands of controversial Indian tantrik and former ‘godman’ Chandraswami.  

After Singh graduated and joined as a trainee lawyer in 1997, it was the cases of Chandraswami that Singh attended in courts. The ‘godman’ was not without his share of controversies — he reportedly advised the Sultan of Brunei, actress Elizabeth Taylor, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi and gangster Dawood Ibrahim. 

In its report, the Jain Commission dedicated a volume to Chandraswami’s alleged involvement in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Seventeen years after the assassination, the Enforcement Directorate was still investigating his alleged role as financier of the killing until he passed away in 2017.  

But Singh shared a special bond with the ‘godman’. According to Singh, after he joined the courts, his first two sets of robes, coat and pants used for arguments were gifted by Chandraswami. Soon, Singh also began visiting foreign countries with the ‘godman’. 

Singh has also been in other high-profile cases. In the 2014 Barwala Kand case, in which the ashram of Jagatguru Tadavdarshi Rampal Ji Maharaj was burnt and six of his disciples killed, Singh had fought the case for the ashram. He also defended the accused in the Yogender murder case of UP’s Shahjahanapur.  

But it is his role in the 16 December case that has really put him in the spotlight. 

Known as the legal brain behind all the petitions being filed in several district courts, high court and the Supreme Court, criminal lawyers believed he made a mockery of the system. 

“Two mercy petitions, two curative petitions? Who advises a divorce petition in a local court on the eve of hanging? This is a dangerous precedent for days to come especially for death sentences,” said a senior criminal lawyer practising in SC.

His juniors, however, are appreciative. “Whenever he walks in the courtroom, all eyes are on him. They want to mock him for defending the accused but they too deserve a lawyer, don’t they?” asks one of his associates.  

As for Singh, he remains unperturbed. “Kuchh toh log kahenge, logo ka kaam hai kehena,” he says. 


Also read: The ‘honourability index’: A look at Supreme Court judges who took post-retirement jobs


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

News media is in a crisis & only you can fix it

You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust.

You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the media’s economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism.

We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the country’s most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building India’s most ambitious and energetic news platform. And we aren’t even three yet.

At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly and on time even in this difficult period. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is. Our stellar coronavirus coverage is a good example. You can check some of it here.

This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it. Because the advertising market is broken too.

If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous, and questioning journalism, please click on the link below. Your support will define our journalism, and ThePrint’s future. It will take just a few seconds of your time.

Support Our Journalism

19 Comments Share Your Views

19 COMMENTS

  1. The primary motive of this lawyer A P Singh defended the criminals, Nirbhaya’s rapists so agressively is for getting publicity although negative, and to establish himself to be criminals’ lawyer. He very well knows that in India there are several high profile criminals, and he will be chased by most of them if not all to represent them, and earn loads of money.

    In Nirbhaya’s case, Singh’s primary argument that what the girl was doing out at night with her boyfriend casting doubt on her character is absolutely baseless as this doesn’t justify the heinous act of gang rape and brutal assault of the girl by the criminals. This reflects his pathetic mindset, and also, casts doubt on his upbringing. He seems to have agreed to defend one of the criminals at the behest of his mother also confirms his poor upbringing and makes one think whether his mother is insane as to how she can ask her son to represent someone who has committed heinous crime, and behaved inhumanly. Moreover, we can’t rule out involvement of a heavy weight anonymous person who must have financed the legal fees of A P Singh as certainly Singh must have not represented this case free of cost.

  2. unfortunately there is a dangerous tendency in India…sympathy to culprits,negative personality,criminals….more interestingly some woman shows more sympathy to criminals,rapist…etc need some re-search on it
    see the woman lawyers came into defense of these criminals

  3. Out of frustration due to his unsuccessful attempt to avoid the hanging, he is blabbering, like a person of unsound mind, forgetting his noble profession.

  4. Mr.A P Singh verdict on nirbhays character is unfit as human being and a lawyer.He is working with his female staff means he is having affairs with her ?It doesn’t means if a lady is going with boyfriend to watch movies doesn’t means her character is not good .This Six culprits are raped her and murdered means they did a good job? You are unfit for to judge the situation and being a lawyer against culprits.What about your oath ? regarding Justice…..?????????????

    Shame

  5. I feel sorry that ap singh has a brainless mother….this rape stems from incorrect family values.,..the 6 monsters had a pathetic upbringing so did a p singh…which mother will ask her son to defend rapists….punita devi is another drama troupe member,.,sick memtality….ap singh is no different from.mukesh ram pawan vinay mohammad akshay

  6. He said in his statement that,” woh ladki 12:30 bje tak bahar kya kar rhi thi aur agr meri beti aisa karti toh I would have burnt her! First of all ,abey tu hai kaun ? Jo yeh decide karega ki ladkiyan kab tak bahar jayengi aur kab nhi , I m a girl and mere dad mujhe kabhi kisi bhi cheez se nhi rokte! And secondly I really feel sorry for his daughter! Kaisa bekaar aur haiwaan baap mila hai! Jiski apni beti hone ke baad bhi jisne rapists ko defend kiya itne saal ,usse bada devil toh ho hi nhi sakta! But ypu know what karma strikes wait ! Wait and watch ! You’ll have to pay for it

  7. No point in blaming the Lawyer as he was doing his job of saying life may be on some lies and inspite of social outrage. Fact remains that he lost and the culprits were hanged. The point to ponder here is that in the aftermath of Ex CJI taking oath as RS members so many decisions earned question marks. And if this case also getting mingled would any God can bring the culprits back ? Surely not , so giving excessive importance to collection of human bodies must be done away with.

  8. Even after losing, AP Singh finally raises questions about Nirbhaya’s Character. If it was happened to his own sister , daughter or any of his family members then what would have been his attitude or how he would have handled the case?.

  9. To me the real hero is ap Singh who could pull the false and unjustified case so long. He could use the loopholes of our legal system so nicely and gave life to convict s 7 years. To prove a truth is easy.

  10. As a lawyer he has every right to defend his clients. But lawyer should also get into the shoes of judge and see whether his client is really culprit or just framed. If he defending the real culprits, he can present the case and ask for pardon or lesser punishment. He cannot and should not twist the case to suit his client and do a character assassination of the victim to score points to twist the case and do everything to delay the justice is not called Lawyer’s Dharma. He is a crook when he says that he will douse his daughter with fire on one hand and on the other hand he fight for his client because he is for Ahimsa. This is called split personality or pure greed for money. Like Ram Jethmalani supports all the crooks and earn his title as richest lawyer in India.

  11. Now the criminals are hanged, he was doing job of representing their case as it has to be. He must keep his mouth shut and move on.

  12. I do not share some of his views. Setting one’s daughter alight is not an act of chivalry or honour. However, he fought for his four clients with great tenacity. That is a lawyer’s dharma. Not refusing to take up a case which has shocked people’s conscience. Determination of guilt is the Court’s job.

    • You should fight for right thing and not play with system. He just wanted to prove he is a great lawyer by manipulation.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here