Sexual Harassment Allegations against CJI

Why in news?

• Recently, many online news portals published reports of a former Court employee's allegations of sexual harassment against the CJI.
• A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, presided by the CJI himself, dismissed the allegations.

What is the case all about?

• Several news websites published reports of former Court employee accusing the Chief Justice of India of having made sexual advances towards her.
• The complainant, a former junior court assistant, had also made her charge in the form of an affidavit.
• It was supported by purported evidence and has been sent to 22 judges of the court.
• The woman, in her mid-thirties, complained of subsequent police harassment against her.
• She had also alleged that she was unceremoniously dismissed from service.
• On publication of the allegation, the Court reacted almost instantly and a notice of a special open court session was circulated among the media.

What is the court's stance?

• On hearing the case, the Supreme Court bench dismissed the allegations as "wild and baseless".
• It said the allegation was designed to attack and erode the independence of the judiciary.
• It, however, did not pass any gag order against the media on reporting this.
• Instead, the bench urged the media to exercise restraint in the matter.

Has the court dealt with it justly?

• First of all, the decision to hold an open court hearing is questionable.
• A complaint of this nature requires an institutional response on the administrative side.
• There is an internal process to initiate an inquiry mandated by the law regarding sexual harassment at the workplace.
• The Supreme Court itself has an internal sub-committee for this.
• It was formed under Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment of Women at Supreme Court (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Guidelines, 2015.
• It is possible even now to send the complaint to an independent committee.
• There is also a separate ‘in-house procedure’ to deal with complaints against judges.
• Under this, their judicial peers, and not outsiders, will examine such complaints.
• In any case, it is clear that the CJI ought not to have presided over the special Bench that took up the matter that concerned himself.
• The bench did not include the two senior-most judges after the CJI; nor was there a woman judge on the Bench.

What is the larger concern now?

• The manner in which the Supreme Court responded shows how not to deal with such a complaint.
• With this, the judiciary is again into a major controversy, after concerns were raised on its credibility in the recent times.
• Some months back, four members of the collegium, including Justice Gogoi, went public against then CJI Deepak Misra. Click here to know more.

What lies ahead?

• The focus now shifts to the judges, excluding the CJI, who were all sent a copy of the affidavit and the complaint.
• Their response, as members of the Supreme Court, is bound to define the path which will guide the institution in dealing with the crisis.
• The apex court could also respond to the institutional crisis through a full court being convened on the administrative side.
• Any response involving all the judges of the Supreme Court is bound to find greater acceptability among jurists and the wider public.
• It would also shift the spotlight away from the CJI and underline that the institution itself will work out its response.

Source: Indian Express, The Hindu