Ranjan Gogoi: CJI accused of Sexual Harassment

 

In this article, we will see the procedure opted by the Supreme Court for enquiry.  After then we will see What Kanoon Says about it, which means we will see related provisions laid in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH act, 2013), In house Procedure, 1999, Constitution of India, 1950.

Facts of the Case:

April 19, 2019

The woman sent an affidavit to the 22 Supreme Court Judges on April 19, 2020. The affidavit was well-detailed and well-corroborated with the documents and videos. In the affidavit, she had narrated incidents of sexual harassment victimization by the CJI. The content of the affidavit was published by news channels.

Content of Affidavit

According to the affidavit, incidents of sexual harassment took place on October 10, 2018 and October 11, 2018.

October 10, 2018 – First-time CJI sexually harassed Woman.

Here is the portion of the affidavit narrating the incident:

“Though I usually wear a uniform of black and white clothing, on that day since it was the first day of Navratri, I had worn an orange kurta and dupatta. The CJI referring to my clothes, told me, “You are looking pretty good today.” The CJI asked me to come and stand next to him, he got up from his chair. The CJI then asked me, “What can you do for me?”, I kept repeating that I was very grateful and that everybody in my family was very happy. The CJI then slid his hand from the back of my head, along my back to my hipline, till my lower back. I immediately froze and my body stiffened. I think the CJI sensed this, and so he immediately pulled both my cheeks, like one would do to a child. He told me that he is like this with his daughter too.”

Later, CJI said to the woman to write down what she could do for him.

October 11, 2018 – Second-time CJI sexually harassed W.

She described the incident of October 11, 2018, as follows:

The CJI once again asked me, “So, what can you do for me”. He asked me whether I have written anything down, I showed him a notepad on which I had written how grateful I was…The CJI read the note. He then got up from his chair and walked across and came and stood to my left. Since he was standing, I too stood up as I could not continue sitting when the CJI is standing. He took my notepad from my hands and put it aside on the desk, he then took my hands into his and told me that my hands smell nice, he then pinched my cheeks, he then put his arms around my waist from the front, he said, “I want this from you”. When I had stood up, I had put my hands behind my back. He hugged me around the waist, and touched me all over my body with his arms and by pressing his body against mine, and did not let go. He told me “hold me”, he did not let go of me even though I froze and tried to get out of his embrace by stiffening and moving my body away. Since he did not stop forcibly hugging me, I was forced to push him away from me with my hands. When I pushed him away, he hit his head against a bookshelf/cabinet on my left. My first thought was why would the CJI think he can do something like this to me. I immediately left the room and was in a state of complete shock and was unable to think clearly after this. I sat at my desk.”

After these incidents, eventually, she was thrown out of her job. Her husband and brothers-in-law were also thrown out of their job. Few false cases were also instituted against her family. Their lives were torn apart.

On January 10, 2019, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Tilak Marg Police Station, Naresh Solanki, called the woman and asked whether she would apologise or not. As she wanted to end her family’s trouble, so she agreed. Then, he drove her to the house of the CJI and where she apologised to the wife of the CJI in presence of the SHO and Mr. Deepak Jain.

After this, she thought that things will get better. But they became worse. On March 3, 2019, new FIR was registered by Naveen Kumar against the woman for taking a bribe. Later, she along with her husband and brothers-in-law was arrested and abused.

Ranjan Gogoi’s (CJI) side story:

Though there is no official statement released by the CJI clarifying this matter. But CJI in the interview, given after retirement, vehemently denied such allegations and said that such allegations are made to malign his image as well as to attack the independence and integrity of the Judiciary. He further said that such attempts are made by the people who are adversely affected by his judgements in Assam NRC, Ayodhya Ram Mandir case etc. He also said that enquiry was conducted under ‘In house Procedure’ and he gave file of the case by order to Justice S. A. Bobde (then second senior-most Judge) to handle the case. It was Justice S. A. Bobde who instituted a committee for enquiry.

Steps were taken by the Supreme Court to enquire into the matter:

April 20, 2019 – No one can be a Judge in his own

The Special Bench – comprising of Chief Justice of India Rajan Gogoi (Himself), Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna – was constituted by CJI to take cognisance of “In Re: Matter of Great Public Importance Touching Upon the Independence of Judiciary.” After hearing the issue, the bench negated all the allegations.

This act of the apex court attracted a lot of criticism from lawyers, journalist, activists and academics. As, according to critique, this act was a clear violation of one of the three principles of Natural Justice i.e, Nemo judex in causa sua (No one can be a Judge on his own).

According to In house Procedure, CJI will prima facie enquire about the issue. But in this case, it would not be possible to invoke such rule as CJI is himself accused and according to the principles of Natural Justice i.e, No one can be a Judge on his own.

April 23, 2019 – Inquiry Committee

According to the In-House Procedure, 3 Supreme Court Judges committee shall be instituted by the CJI to enquire into allegations. Hence, the committee was constituted comprising of 3 members i.e., Justice NV Ramana, Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice SA Bobde.

The objection was raised by the woman that Justice NV Ramana is close to CJI. So, Justice NV Ramana recused and Justice Indu Malhotra took his place.

The objection was raised against the member of the committee. Since all the judges in the committee were junior to the CJI, so there could be chances of undue influence or favouring of CJI by his colleague or junior. Also, the woman in her affidavit had requested to form a committee of the retired women judges to enquire into the matter.

In the case of Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2014) (MP Judge case), Supreme Court observed that if a committee is constituted with members who are colleagues of the accused judge, then there might be a chance of showing favouritism by such members towards their colleague. On the other hand, there could also be a chance that such members might have animosity against his colleague and may use such a situation to equal his score because of animosity due to competitiveness, jealousy etc.

Moreover, as per sec. 4 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, (PoSH act, 2013) Internal Committee shall consist of at least 4 members. Among such 4 members:

a)    One member shall be the Presiding officer who shall be a woman employed at a senior level at a workplace from amongst the employees.

b)    At least 2 members amongst the employee who shall be committed to cause of women or have social work experience in this field or have legal knowledge about it.

c)    One member shall be from NGOs or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment.

Apart from all these, One of the three principles of the Natural Justice i.e, Justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done shall be complied as per Para 6 of the In house Procedure, 1999.

April 30, 2019 – Refusal by the Woman to Participate in the Committee Proceedings

On April 26, 2019, the internal committee started the enquiry. But on April 30, 2019 the woman refused to participate in the enquiry citing the following reasons (according to the press release given by the woman):

1.    “I have not been allowed to have the presence of my lawyer/support person despite my impaired hearing, nervousness and fear.”

2.    “There being no video or audio recording of the Committee proceedings”

3.    “I have not been supplied even a copy of my statement as recorded on 26th and 29th April 2019.”

4.    “I was not informed about the procedure this committee is following.”

There was no statement by the Supreme Court on this. But if we see under In House Procedure, Para 5 states that this enquiry shall not be formal where examination or cross-examination is conducted and parties are represented by respective lawyers. But Para 6 confers power to the enquiry committee to devise rules of the enquiry while keeping in mind the principle of Natural Justice.

On May 1, 2019, the Inquiry committee decided to hear the case ex parte.

On May 6, 2019, the Inquiry committee acquitted the CJI. The committee refused to make the report of the inquiry public.

After this, a lot of protests was held against this. But nothing happened.

In landmark case related to sexual harassment at workplace, Vishaka and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan (1992) [Vishaka case], the Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at a workplace is a violation of fundamental rights i.e., Art. 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21; DPSP i.e., Art. 42 and Fundamental duties i.e, Art. 51 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

As per the latest news report, the woman has got her job back and her husband and bothers in law have been reinstated in their jobs. The case of bribery is also dropped.

Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Imagine the gravity of that threat, if injustice is established in the Supreme Court itself!"

Author Views:

This was RAPE of the Constitution of India in the Daylight. For instance, on April 20, 2019, CJI himself constituted a special bench and presided over it which is totally against the principle of Natural Justice on which the whole In house Procedure is based. And then constituting committee which consists of 3 members who were colleague and junior of the CJI. If I negate all the allegations made by the woman against CJI and only look at the In house procedure followed by the Supreme Court, then also there are question marks on it being unbiased.

What could have been done and what should be done in future in these type of cases?

If any allegation against CJI is made, then a full-court meeting should be held to look into the matter and if they prima facie find that allegations are serious and need to be enquired. Then, a committee of retired judges should be constituted to look into the matter. During a period of enquiry, to remove suspicion of undue influence, CJI should take a leave. This was done during the enquiry constituted against CJI, where then Chief Justice of India, Justice Sabyasachi Mukherjee, asked the then sitting judge of the Supreme Court, Justice V. Ramaswami, to take a leave, so that enquiry could be done in the impartial and without undue influence. After this enquiry, Justice V. Ramaswami become the 1^st Supreme Court judge against whom an impeachment proceeding was initiated.

Removal of CJI from the office is required because the CJI office contains huge power, so there might be a chance that witnesses may be due fear do not come to light.

After completion of the enquiry, the report of the enquiry should not be made public keeping in words of the apex court in the case of Indira Jaising v. Registrar General (2003) that “a report made on such inquiry if given publicity will only lead to more harm than good to the institution as Judges would prefer to face inquiry leading to impeachment.”

If required, a removal proceeding should be initiated according to art. 124 (4) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Author – Satwik Sharma

What are your views on this?

Put your answer in the comment box -