CJI sexual harassment accusations 25/04/2019 – Posted in: Daily News

Internal committee of Supreme Court on CJI sexual harassment accusations

For: Preliminary; Mains: GS II

 

News Flash

The Supreme Court on Tuesday constituted a committee comprising Justice S.A. Bobde (he is the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court after Ranjan Gogoi), Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Indira Banerjee.

All three judges command universal respect on account of their competence, objectivity, experience and independence. Yet, the constitution of the committee raises very serious and profound questions that need to be debated and addressed at the outset.

As it is apparent that the court is violating not just its own guidelines but the law made on the matter based on these guidelines.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in 1997 in Visakha v. State of Rajasthan is a watershed in its history. The Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 32 to lay down a new law to fill the vacuum in matters of sexual harassment at workplace.

 

Among the guidelines and norms laid down are

  • Duty of the employer or other responsible persons in workplaces and other institutions: It shall be the duty of the employer or other responsible persons in workplaces or other institutions to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment.

 

  • Complaints Committee: The Complaints Committee should be headed by a woman and not less than half of its members should be women.

 

  • These directions would be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field.

 

Parliament enacted the law in 2013. The expression ‘workplace’ is defined in an inclusive manner and though it does not include court premises expressly, they are deemed to be included. Sections 4 and 7 are relevant and speak about constitution of internal complaints committee and local complaints committee categorically requiring the chairperson to be a woman employed at a senior level at the workplace or from among eminent women from the field of social work and committed to the cause of women. They also provide that “members be from among the employees, NGO espousing cause of women, etc. be women.

The Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at Supreme Court (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Guidelines, 2013, excludes the court staff from their umbrella and protection.

Constitution of the committee under Regulation 4 of at least seven members is to be done in accordance with the judgment in the Visakha case and essentially requires only women to be appointed including as the chairperson from the Bench, the Bar, Registry or the non-governmental organizations involved with the cause of women. The Supreme Court has failed to implement Visakha judgment in its own precincts, and Parliament has failed to apply the Act of 2013 to court premises across the country.

 

Court should show fairness to complainant to complainant

  • The constitution of the committee is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Act and the guidelines.
  • It would be taking away the dignity of the woman if she were to appear before a committee comprised of men even to describe in detail the sexual harassment suffered by her.
  • Troubling statements issued by the Secretary-General of the Court and by the office-bearers of the Union of the Employees of the Court, both terming her allegations to be false and expressing solidarity with the Chief Justice clearly is a sign of institutional biases.
  • The only witnesses who could possibly support her version are the employees of the Court. It is inconceivable that they can give independent evidence with this background and that too before a committee comprising three judges, two of whom are going to be Chief Justices in the future.
  • Institutional bias is against natural justice. As early as 1957, the Supreme Court in Manak Lal’s Case has held “in such cases the test is not whether the bias has effected the judgment: the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the Tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the Tribunal, it is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.

 

Background

A 35-year-old woman who used to work as a junior court assistant at the Supreme Court of India wrote to 22 judges of the court on April 19, alleging that Gogoi had made sexual advances on her at his residence office on October 10 and 11 in 2018.

 

Source: The wire