From his time as an independent advocate, Manohar Lal Sharma had been filing petitions. Doing so since 2007, he has been dubbed a serial petitioner. His histrionic tendencies peaked while defending the accused in the 2012 Nirbhaya case and has often been called out for his treatment of misrepresenting female victims. Ironically most of his cases are dismissed in the preliminary stages but that doesn’t stop him from filing innumerable Public Interest Litigations (PIL).
In 2007, he filed a PIL against the nomination of Pratibha Patil as president on the grounds of financial impropriety and her being declared insolvent. This was dismissed at the admissions stage, but he filed and another petition two months later over the Election Commission’s dissatisfied reply that the bankruptcy court would determine the case of the President and not them. In the same year, he impugned the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) application of margin rule, seeking an enquiry against Indian offshore bank account holders.
This too was dismissed at admission. The final case that year, which was also dismissed at admission, was for seeking a judicial committee to probe allegations against former Chief Justice of India Y. K. Sabharwal in the Delhi “sealing cases”.
The very next year, he filed a PIL against the Union of India over the India-US nuclear deal— which was dismissed. In 2010, he filed two cases against the Union of India and one against the state of UP, all of which were dismissed due to the lack of substantial prayer—and often improper drafting.
2012 saw Sharma file petitions on the coal allocation scam, the Nirbhaya rape case, against then-President Pranab Mukherjee and against former Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia.
His defence of the accused in the Nirbhaya Delhi gang rape and murder case was perhaps his most controversial moment, as he blamed the victim for using public transportation. He said, “Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady. Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect."
He later, however, called the male victim "wholly responsible" for the incident because he "failed in his duty to protect the woman". The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association went on to file a petition before the Supreme Court seeking restriction on the entry of M.L. Sharma to the apex courts' premises, alleging that his comments in the BBC documentary India's Daughter were "inhumane, scandalous, unjustifiable and a direct affront to and in violation of the dignity of women."
The same year he filed a case against the then President, Pranab Mukherjee, for misusing his power and fund as the finance minister in his candidacy. This was dismissed at admission stating unsubstantiated petitions.
Sharma had previously been threatened with debarment for filing frivolous pleas by various judges. Yet in the same year (2012), he filed a plea against former Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia, who had ruled against the revenue department granting tax relief to Vodafone to the tune of Rs 10,000 crore in the same year. His plea was that S.H. Kapadia should not have heard the case because his son drafted a due diligence report when Vodafone was acquired by Hutchison-Essar. The case which pleaded conflict of interest was heard by Justice Aftab Alam, who penalised him Rs 50,000 for his conduct.
The very next year, he filed an appeal against an intern who had accused a former judge of sexual harassment. In his plea, Sharma suggested that he learnt from “ancient books” that “lady never speak truth”.
In 2015, he filed a petition concerning the Rafale Deal which was initially dismissed. A fresh plea was submitted earlier this year, naming Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the first respondent, Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited as the second, the Union of India as the third and the CBI as the fourth.
In 2018, he was fined Rs 50,000 for the PIL for accusing Arun Jaitley of "plundering RBI’s resources". The plea was turned down, but its wording caught the attention of readers across India. It read, “The impugned order has been issued to find political opponent, thinker and speaker to control entire country under dictatorship to win coming general election under an undisclosed emergency as well as slavery which cannot be permitted within the Constitution of India.”
Some of his other pleas are the December 2015 case (which claimed the CIA was funding the Aam Admi Party), the one in 2011 seeking the regulation of NGO finances, challenging the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) to be declared void because it did not have a President’s signature in 2017. All the claims were dismissed at the hearing stage.
Now, adding to the list is his most recent petition seeking a probe into the Pegasus issue.