Express editorial on SC in-house inquiry: Not justice
The three-member panel
probing charges of sexual harassment against Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had
a task much broader and more critical than its stated remit. Given that it was
investigating allegations levelled against the highest office of the country’s
apex court, the panel needed to answer questions that pertained, inevitably, to
the integrity of the institution itself. Upon it also lay the onus of
instituting procedures that mitigated the unequal power relations in a case
where a former junior employee of the court was ranged against the CJI. In a
report submitted on Monday, the panel has given a clean chit to CJI Gogoi. It
has “found no substance” in the charges. But this denouement — an ex parte
report, which will not be made public — raises more questions than it answers.
On what basis did the enquiry committee conclude there was ‘no substance’ to the allegation?
‘Disappointed’, says complainant as SC panel finds ‘no substance’ in sexual harassment allegations
CJI case: Lawyers and activists detained for protesting against inquiry panel’s decision outside SC
CJI case: Lawyers and activists detained for protesting against inquiry panel’s decision outside SC
The committee
comprising Justices S A Bobde, Indira Banerjee and Indu
Malhotra wrapped up the inquiry in sittings over four days, three of
which were devoted to questioning the complainant. On the third day, the
complainant withdrew from the probe alleging that the panel did not adopt “a
procedure that would ensure fairness and equality”. She accused the committee
of not informing her about its procedures, denying her legal help, not
recording its proceedings and not providing her with a copy of her depositions
before it. Each of these four points raises issues of power asymmetry.
The
committee’s task was, no doubt, complicated by the fact that the SC’s “in-house
procedures” do not have provisions to deal with charges against the CJI. But
the apex court has, over the years, also interpreted and re-interpreted
Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution to lay down the rights of
working women. The probe was a chance to extend such jurisprudence to a
situation inside the institution of the court.
The panel’s recourse
to an ex-parte investigation is problematic. Aside from the fact that such a
probe is against the principles of natural justice, the apex court has, in
February this year, ruled that an ex parte verdict can be set aside under the
Code of Civil Procedure. And by not making its report public, the panel has
come up short on the requirement of transparency that should have been
fundamental in a case of such gravity. It has argued that the verdict in Indira
Jaising vs Supreme Court of India does not enjoin placing in public “the report
of a committee constituted as a part of the In-House Procedure”. But surely a
probe into an issue where the institutional propriety of the SC is in question
cannot hearken to pre-RTI jurisprudence — which Indira Jaising is. The panel’s verdict
goes against the Court’s tradition of interpreting the law creatively for the
sake of upholding and strengthening constitutional morality. The Court has
corrected itself in the past. It should do so again.
