Page 3 - 31MAY2019E

Editor’s Note

Clean chit to CJI in sexual

harassment case ups eyebrows

Clean Chit given to Chief Jus- 6. The moot question is doesn’t the complainant enjoy
tice of India, Ranjan Gogoi in sexual the right to know the details of the proceedings of the
harassment case by an in-house committee, which had been found on her complaint
committee of Justices SA Bobde, but found that there was ‘no substance’ in her charges?
Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee Even if in-house committee findings were in keeping
has raised eyebrows. The commit- with legal tenets, the decision not to share the findings
tee has found “no substance” in the with complainant has only made it vulnerable to criti-
complaint of the former court staffer, cism. Ironically, there is no Vishakha Committee in Su-
who citing “principles of natural justice” had preme Court that applies to Judges and the in-house the
withdrawn from the probe after being denied her law- committee has followed the procedure set up way back
yer’s presence during deposition. in 1999. No doubt, the Apex Court Judges are vulnerable
First, the committee went ahead with the probe because they defend the Constitution and interpret laws
though the complainant had opted out of the proceed- and there is a need to have an inquiry into the alleged
ings. Secondly, the in-house committee brushed aside conspiracy to frame the CJI. But the old hackneyed pro-
the complainant’s demand to be accompanied by a law- cedure is in need of an upgrade following the #MeToo
yer and video recording of the closed-door hearings. movement and cases of sexual harassment received
Thirdly, the committee failed to make its findings public against Judges from time to time. Earlier the CJI’s own
and lastly, the Committee refused to provide a copy of presence in the Bench hearing the complaint and his
the findings to the complainant. The 36-year-old wom- oral observations had raised questions over the meth-
an who was posted in Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi’s home odology adopted. The adage is that not only must justice
office had listed charges of sexual harassment and per- be done it must also be seen to be done. Little doubt that
secution in an affidavit that was sent to 22 judges of the women activists have started protests against the clean
apex court on April 19. chit given to the CJI while Bar Council leaders are divid-
In her affidavit, the former employee claimed that ed on the issue. These are testing times for the Supreme
after she rebuffed CJI’s advances, she and her family Court because the credibility of the institution and its
faced consistent harassment that including her termi- head is in question. It is time the Supreme Court judges
nation. The Court set up a three-member inquiry panel, who are eminently qualified set their house in order.
which cleared CJI of all allegations in its report on May (chARAnjIt AhujA)

WeB teAM print E r & pub L ish E r
sunny sharma, shveta Mishra swinder Bajwa
FREE . FAIR . FEARLESS design teAM printed & published by swinder Bajwa on behalf of
Vikram nongmaithem, Ajoy sen, Anant Media pvt. ltd.
Editor Charanjit Ahuja* Aditi Chahar, Anangpal singh published from
associatE Editor Abdul Wasey
pHoto seCtion anant media pvt Ltd,
stAte Correspondents sr photo coordinator deepak Jha building no 23, nehru place,
riyaz Wani (srinagar) new delhi-110019
Ad sAles & MArketing
Mudit Mathur (Lucknow)
rajni Bhalla printEd at m.p. printers,
rakesh rocky (shimLa) adsales@tehelka.com
Bharat Hiteshi (chandigarh) b-220, phase-ii, noida, up
*(Editor for purpose of prb act 1867) accounts pradeep sharma E-mail editor@tehelka.com

Volume 16, Issue no. 10, 16-31 may 2019, RELEASEd on 16 may, numbER oF pAgES IncLudIng covER 68
FoR EnquIRIES & compLAIntS cALL dELhI: 011-40600890 oR EmAIL: wecare@tehelka.com

Add.indd 5 25/09/18 4:53 PM