As convoluted and confusing as the Sheena Bora murder case is, there is a knotty tangle in the manner in which the prime accused Indrani Mukerjea and her husband, former Star India CEO Peter Mukerjea have chosen lawyers to represent them.
Noted senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, son of legal luminary and Rajya Sabha MP Ram Jethmalani, is representing Peter Mukerjea, while his associate and junior Gunjan Mangla is defending Indrani’s legal rights in so far as her appearance before Mumbai Police investigators and long hours of interrogation is concerned.
When contacted, Mahesh Jethmalani admitted to The Quint: “Peter is my client and has always been my client.” Mangla could not be contacted because she was busy representing Indrani when she was taken in for questioning at Khar police station this afternoon.
Peter Mukerjea visited the office of Mahesh Jethmalani on August 28. At that time the top advocate had confirmed that Mukerjea did indeed meet him but declined to comment any further. Media reports quoting unnamed sources said that Peter Mukerjea reiterated that he knew Sheena to be Indrani’s sister. The reports suggested that both Indrani and Peter spoke with Mahesh Jethmalani after her arrest on August 25 evening.
Mangla’s LinkedIn profile says she is an “Associate at Chamber of Mahesh Jethmalani” since September 2011. In the past, Mangla and Mahesh Jethmalani have worked together in several cases involving high-profile business and industry clients.
In all his public utterances, Peter Mukerjea has distanced himself from Indrani and any knowledge of the crime committed on April 24, 2012.
So how can two lawyers who work together represent a murder accused and her husband who has claimed in interviews to TV news channels that he was unaware of not just the murder of Indrani’s daughter Sheena Bora whom he knew as his wife’s sister but also his spouse’s murky past and dealings with her divorced second husband Sanjeev Khanna, whom the police has implicated in this case?
Speaking to The Quint, former Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran said that this was a case of “conflict of interest” and “unethical” and could be in violation of the Bar Council of India’s rules.
Former Supreme Court judge, Justice A K Ganguly, said “a lawyer’s job is independent of his or her senior but ethics depends upon the individual advocate.”
A senior Supreme Court advocate, who did not wish to be identified, however, felt that two lawyers who work together but represent two opposing parties does not constitute “conflict of interest.” He also said such professional relationships were “not unethical” and did not go against the prevailing “court culture” in India.
This advocate said that a conflict of interest situation will arise at the trial stage if the two continue to retain the same lawyers representing them now.
What is inescapable is the public perception that the two lawyers, Mahesh Jethmalani and Mangla, who draws her salary from her senior and takes instructions, could be collaborating behind the interrogation chamber of Khar police station.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)