‘This episode is going to haunt SC in years to come’: Justice AP Shah on CJI sexual harassment case
NB: The denial to this complainant of the most basic norms of natural justice is yet another a public display of ruthless cynicism by the Hon'ble judges. (Readers may recall the manner in which the SC dealt with the death of Judge Loya. In that case, the message was that the 'Sangh Parivar' is above the law). In this one, the respected the former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has been reminded of Kafka's chilling tragic satire on justice, The Trial. No contempt of court could be as damaging as this self-goal. By holding yourselves above the law, you have reduced yourselves Lordships. DS
On a day the in-house inquiry committee found “no substance” in allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and gave him a clean chit, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice A P Shah, discusses the turn of events that have unfolded in Supreme Court in an interview with Kaunain Sheriff M & Seema Chishti. Excerpts:
On a day the in-house inquiry committee found “no substance” in allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and gave him a clean chit, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, Justice A P Shah, discusses the turn of events that have unfolded in Supreme Court in an interview with Kaunain Sheriff M & Seema Chishti. Excerpts:
All that the woman asked for was to be represented by a lawyer or a friend. This was a very basic, and in my view, a reasonable request, coming from someone pitted against three powerful judges of a powerful institution. But this basic minimum right was denied to the woman. What Justice (D Y) Chandrachud now appears to have said in his letter is absolutely correct, when he wrote that the woman should be allowed to be represented by a lawyer or an amicus curiae. I also agree that there ought to have been an external inquiry. There is no other way to ensure that the judiciary can be viewed as an impartial body... Certain other facts about this so called inquiry are also problematic. The woman was told that her own testimony, once she made it, would not be given to her because the inquiry is confidential. She also asked for procedural guidelines before the committee began its inquiry, but even that was not supplied. It is all very Kafka-esque in so many ways, and reminds one of the trial in his book of the same name.
The in-house
inquiry committee gave a clean chit to CJI Ranjan Gogoi in connection with the
alleged sexual harassment complaint filed by a former employee of the Supreme
Court. What was your reaction when you first heard of the alleged sexual
harassment case
I have read the
29-page affidavit completely, on the sexual harassment and victimization of the
former employee of the Supreme Court. As a judge, I don’t accept anything on
face value. But I thought the affidavit was quite detailed, and perhaps needs
to be probed. I was particularly struck by the fact of her dismissal after the
alleged event, which appeared to be on flimsy grounds – i.e., leave of absence
for half-a-day, and making a fuss about the change in her seating position,
etc.
I thought that the court
would have a standard operating procedure or in-house mechanism, for dealing
with such complaints, laid down in the past from other cases that the judiciary
has faced. Of course, because this complaint has been made against the Chief
Justice of India (CJI), any probe or investigation should have been done with
great care and sensitivity.
The CJI called an extraordinary hearing to say that there was a conspiracy against him. What does this mean, given that at the press conference by four most senior SC judges in January 2018 he had cautioned the country against attempts to undermine independence of the judiciary?
The SC described the
situation as a “matter of great public importance touching upon the
independence of judiciary, as mentioned by the Solicitor General”. During the
hurriedly called extraordinary hearing called on a Saturday after the complaint
was formally received by the court, the CJI himself alleged that this woman had
a criminal background, and that this was a conspiracy to destabilise him.
Another judge said that the allegations were wild and baseless, and a law
officer said that this was blackmail.
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 final order passed
on that first day was signed only by two out of three judges sitting at the
hearing. It was all very disturbing for me to read these comments and these
goings-on. To say the least, the whole series of events was completely
astonishing. Even assuming that the
woman was completely wrong, she still has a constitutional right of due
process. How could the CJI become a judge in his own cause? Our judges seem to
have completely forgotten the words of Justice Verma, who said, “Be you may
ever so high, you are not above law.” You can’t be sitting in judgment in your
own case. How can there be any possible redress to this woman in these
circumstances. Every imaginable aspect of rule of law and natural justice was
violated. I believe this was an extremely low point in the history of the
Indian judiciary.
Do the Vishaka
guidelines apply to the whole of Supreme Court?
Vishaka brought about
a monumental change in India, and was a turning point in our country’s history.
Vishaka cannot be brushed aside. It is the basis of the POSH law of 2015. At
the time of the Vishaka judgment, the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) had been signed but not as yet
been implemented in India. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that the
principles of CEDAW must apply in India. Hence, the Vishaka came about. It is one of the most
respected judgments in the global judicial community. It sets down a process
and guidelines for dealing with instances of sexual harassment at workplaces.
If you see all the judgments that followed, much jurisprudence has developed on
the subject. Vishaka fundamentally demands a fair and just inquiry into the
allegations. That is the least that the Supreme Court and the judiciary should
have assured the public here too.
The current situation
and the reaction of the judges was a complete denial of the Vishaka judgment,
and made the sanctimonious presumption that women have the propensity to lie.
How should the
process have been followed in the present case?
Unfortunately, the
committee has passed a decision ex parte in the absence of the complainant….
read more:
see also
Samjhauta Express blast case verdict: ‘Who will answer for death of my five children?’
