Allegations against CJI: ‘I have a right to know why my plaint had no substance,' says Complainant

Unhappy with the Supreme Court decision, the woman who has accused Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment, on Tuesday demanded a copy of the SC’s in-house committee report that cleared CJI Gogoi of the charges. The panel gave a clean chit to the CJI finding no substance in the victim’s complaint and decided to keep the report under wraps. Since a copy is being shared with the CJI, who is the alleged accused in the present case, she found it “strange” how the complainant is denied the same.

She shot a letter to the three-member in-house committee – Justices SA Bobde, Indu Malhotra, Indira Banerjee – felt that denial of the report amounted to violation of principles of natural justice and a complete “travesty of justice”.

She backed her demand quoting Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 which provides for the inquiry report to be shared with all parties to the complaint. Finding herself handicapped without any information forthcoming as to what made the judges disbelieve her account, the victim said, “I request you to kindly provide me with a copy of the report. I have a right to know how, why, and on what basis have your Lordships found my complaint to have no substance.”

A statement issued by SC on Monday stated that the report cannot be shared in public domain due to a judgment in Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India (2003) which held that Report of a Committee constituted as part of the In-House Procedure is not liable to be made public. 

Replying to this, the victim claimed this judgment to be of pre-RTI period as since then even the information on assets of judges is now in public domain.

The in-house committee had recorded the statement of the victim on (April 26, 29, 30) and then proceeded ex-parte against her after she withdrew and refused to cooperate till she was allowed assistance of a lawyer in the proceedings against her.

Sources in the SC said that Rules governing the in-house procedure does not envisage a lawyer for the victim. The relevant rules read: “The enquiry shall be in the nature of fact finding enquiry. The judge concerned would be entitled to appear and have a say. But it would not be a formal judicial enquiry involving the examination and cross-examination of witnesses and representation by lawyers.”

They cited a similar provision in Rule 7(6) of Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 which stated: “The parties shall not be allowed to bring in any legal practitioner to represent them in their case at any stage of the proceedings before the Complaints Committee.”

These Rules, however, do not govern in-house procedure, which was approved by the Full Court of the Supreme Court on December 15, 1999 being devised as a means to protect independence of judiciary.

Sexual Harassment Allegation

3-member panel had recorded complainant’s statement on (April 26, 29, 30)

• In-house committee gave clean chit to CJI Gogoi in sexual harassment case
• Committee did not find any substance in the woman’s allegations
• Complainant, has demanded a copy of report under Sec 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2013