The Justice S.A. Bobde in-house committee has found “no substance” in the sexual harassment allegations against CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
What is the Court's statement?
The inquiry by the in-house panel was by nature purely preliminary, ad hoc and only for the purpose of getting information.
As part of the in-house procedure, the committee’s report would be kept confidential and would not be placed in the public domain.
The report was given to Chief Justice Gogoi and the “next senior judge competent to receive the report”, Justice Arun Mishra who is the fourth seniormost judge.
Justice Ramana, the third seniormost judge, was not handed the report.
He had earlier recused from the committee following allegations raised by the complainant about his proximity to Chief Justice Gogoi.
What are the varied concerns?
Report - The Supreme Court quoted its reported decision of 2003 in Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India.
It was held then that an in-house inquiry report was “discreet” and “not for the purpose of disclosure to any other person”.
However, the 2003 decision does not contemplate a situation when the Chief Justice of India is himself under inquiry as in this case.
What next? - Reportedly, the report would go no further than Justice Mishra and Chief Justice Gogoi.
There would be no Full Court meeting on the contents of the “informal” proceedings.
The report cannot be reviewed judicially.
Proceedings - Also, there are reports being published in the media, of dissent in the highest judiciary about the manner of the committee proceedings.
Supreme Court Secretary General said that the Justice Bobde Committee deliberated on its own without taking any inputs from other apex court judges.
No one else, including the complainant, knows what evidence was examined and who else testified apart from herself.
The most relevant parts of the complaint were -
the transfer orders and disciplinary inquiry against her
the role of the court administration in dismissing her
the role of the Delhi Police in arresting her on a complaint of alleged bribery
initiating disciplinary action against her husband and his brother, both police personnel
It is not known if any of these officials were examined.
Complainant - The complainant later withdrew from the inquiry, saying she was denied the help of a lawyer or a representative.
She found the questions from a panel of three sitting Supreme Court judges quite intimidating.
She noted that she was not clear how her testimony was being recorded.
Meanwhile, she also said that she and her family members remained vulnerable to the ongoing reprisals and attack.
Mechanism - The manner in which the court dealt with the complaint on the administrative side has not been fair.
The in-house procedure was devised in 1999.
It envisages only a committee of 3 judges to deal with allegations against serving Supreme Court judges.
But the fact that a special law to deal with sexual harassment at the workplace is in force since 2013 appears to have made no difference.
The court did not, even in the interest of appearing fair, adopt a formal procedure or allow the complainant to have legal representation.
In all, when it comes to dealing with its own, the Supreme Court seems to have merely been a prisoner of procedure.
The in-house panel has largely resorted to its power at the cost of fairness to the complainant.
