My right to get report, says woman who complained against Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi
New Delhi, May 7: The former woman employee of the Supreme Court who levelled sexual harassment allegations against Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, on Tuesday sought a copy of the report of the In-House Inquiry Committee which gave clean chit to the CJI.
The CJI Monday got a clean chit from a three-member Inquiry Committee headed by Justice S A Bobde which found "no substance" in the allegations of the former woman employee and further ruled that the report was not "liable to be made public".
The 3-member Committee, which completed its task in 14 days, proceeded ex-parte as the woman had opted out of the inquiry on April 30 after participating for three days.
In a letter to Justice Bobde, the woman has alleged lack of transparency in the functioning of the inquiry panel and said that now, not providing her a copy of the order "would be a violation of the principles of natural justice and a complete travesty of justice".
She alleged that in the first hearing, she was not given any clarity on whether the present proceedings were the in-house.
"However, the in-house proceeding rules are now being used to deny me and the public a right to the report. The Secretary General's press note states that a copy of the report will not be made public... It appears from the press release that even I, the complainant, will not be provided with a copy of the report.
"I have a right to the report, the reasons for the same as well as copies of the depositions of any witnesses, any other persons or any other evidence considered by the Committee," she said.
The statement further said that if the CJI was being given a copy of the report, directly or indirectly, the complainant was also entitled to it.
"I find it rather strange that the complainant in a case of sexual harassment is not to be provided with a copy of the report which finds her complaint to be without substance and that my complaint has been held by the committee to be this without giving me any reasons for the same," she said, adding that both the parties had a right to receive a copy of the report.
"I am shocked that despite my detailed affidavit, ample corroborative evidence and clear, consistent statement before the Committee reiterating my experience of sexual harassment and consequent victimisation the Committee has found 'no substance' in my complaint and affidavit.
"I am shocked that Committee has come to an adverse finding against me despite the fact that I was compelled to withdraw from the Committee since the committee did not observe even the most basic principles of natural justice," she said in a statement.
She alleged that from the beginning she was treated as an outsider and was not informed of the procedure and her basic rights and obligations with regard to the inquiry proceedings.
The complainant further alleged lack of transparency in the functioning of the Committee and said a great prejudice was being caused to her repeatedly.
Regarding the judgement cited by the apex court committee while refusing to provide her a copy of the order, she said it was given at a time prior to the Right to Information Act.
"Even according to the full bench judgment of the Delhi High court in the Assets disclosure case, such a report should be accessible to any citizen under the RTI. The full bench had held that even assets of judges would be accessible under RTI to any citizen.
"In these circumstances I request you to kindly provide me with a copy of the report since I have a right to know how, why and on what basis have your Lordships found my complaint to have 'no substance'," the statement said.
The In-House Committee, also comprising two woman judges of the apex court Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee had on May 1 recorded the statement of the CJI who had appeared before it.
The Committee submitted its report to Justice Arun Mishra -- number four in seniority.
After the CJI, constituted on April 23, Justice Bobde is the next senior most judge, followed by Justices N V Ramana, Arun Mishra and R F Nariman.
The allegations against the CJI had become public on April 20 when some news web portals had come out with the stories.
The woman had sent her affidavit to 22 judges of the apex court about the alleged sexual harassment.
Within hours of the allegations coming into public domain, an unprecedented hearing by a bench comprising CJI and Justices Mishra and Sanjiv Khanna had taken place on April 20 which was Saturday.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Sujit Nair raises concerns over speculation of DMK-AIADMK understanding to block TVK
Chennai: Journalist and political commentator Sujit Nair has expressed concern over speculation that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam could explore a post-poll understanding to prevent Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam from forming the government in Tamil Nadu.
In a social media post, Sujit Nair said the election verdict in Tamil Nadu reflected a clear public demand for political change and argued that the mandate should be respected irrespective of political preferences.
Referring to reports and political discussions surrounding a possible understanding between the DMK and AIADMK, he said he hoped such developments remained only speculative conversations and did not turn into reality.
Nair stated that if such an alliance were to take shape, it would raise serious questions about ideological politics in the country. He said TVK had emerged through a democratic electoral process and that the legitimacy to govern in a parliamentary democracy comes from the people’s verdict.
According to him, attempts to prevent an electoral winner from forming the government through unexpected political arrangements may be constitutionally valid, but many people could view them as politically opportunistic.
He further said that such a move could particularly affect the political image of the DMK, which has historically projected itself around ideology, social justice and opposition politics. Nair said that in ideological terms, the DMK appeared closer to TVK than to the AIADMK, and joining hands with its long-time political rival only to remain in power could weaken its broader political narrative.
He added that the same questions would apply to the AIADMK as well, as the party had spent decades positioning itself against the DMK and such an arrangement could create discomfort among its cadre and supporters.
Drawing a comparison with Maharashtra politics in 2019, Nair said he had expressed similar views when the Shiv Sena formed an alliance with the Indian National Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party after the Assembly elections.
He said post-poll alliances between long-standing political rivals often create a public perception that ideology and electoral mandates become secondary when political power equations come into play.
Nair also said such developments increase public cynicism towards politics and reinforce the belief among voters that ideology is often sidelined after elections.
He maintained that the Tamil Nadu verdict was emphatic and said respecting both the spirit and substance of the mandate was important for the credibility of democratic politics.
