DNA Edit: Laying down the law – SC panel sticks to procedure in clearing the CJI

Julius Caesar, the Roman politician, military general, and historian, when asked why he had divorced his second wife, uttered what is now regarded as one of the great truisms in history: “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”. A public figure is supposed to be above any reproach, whatsoever. Against this background, the clean chit issued to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the sexual harassment case marks an important date in this year’s calendar. A three-judge in-house Supreme Court panel headed by Justice SA Bobde dismissed a sacked SC woman employee’s sexual harassment complaint against CJI Ranjan Gogoi, finding “no substance’’ in her allegations. A majority of apex court judges rallied behind the CJI, expressing their solidarity. In doing so, they questioned the lone dissenter, Justice DY Chandrachud, who wrote to the inquiry panel, suggesting an alteration in the inquiry procedure. 

The clean chit to the CJI cannot be faulted on procedure as this was no judicial proceeding, but only an in-house inquiry. According to conventions, there is no record of making proceedings of an in-house inquiry public. Any such inquiry cannot, obviously, overlook the precedent factor. If one single petition like this is entertained, it opens the floodgates to mischief-makers and potential litigants in large numbers, making the highest legal office of the land trivial. The decision of the complainant to withdraw two days after the proceedings started, is complex. The CJI’s brother judges, rightly, observed that levelling charges against the head of the institution would not do as there was no way in which he could have influenced proceedings. In writing its probe report, the three-judge in-house panel considered a large number of documents, including records of SC inquiry proceedings drawn against the complainant leading to her dismissal in 2018. 

Also to be noted, it did examine the CJI. But it is clear that the last word on the subject has not yet been said. An advocate has filed an affidavit alleging that there was a wider conspiracy hatched by “fixers and middlemen’’ to defame the CJI. That has led to the apex court asking a retired SC judge to inquire into the role of “fixers and middlemen’’ in manoeuvring a list of cases before benches of the litigants’ choice. However, some questions remain; the most notable of which is the provision of legal help to the complainant that was not provided. 

There is little point in quibbling about the existence of an external member on the committee because that would go against the well-laid down procedure of in-house inquiries, which do not include outside experts. To be sure, critics are going to red flag the law on sexual harassment that has taken slow and incremental steps in the last 20 years. The Vishakha Guidelines of 1997 and the POSH Act, 2013, have achieved important gains on this front and it can be no one’s case that the dismissal of a sexual harassment case against the CJI, is going to undo all of that.