SC denies report that two judges met Justice Bobde on inquiry into allegations against CJI
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Sunday termed as "wholly incorrect" a media report that said that justices RF Nariman and DY Chandrachud met Justice SA Bobde, who is heading the in-house committee inquiring into sexual harassment allegations against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.
A statement issued by the office of the Supreme Court's secretary general said it is "most unfortunate" that a leading newspaper chose to state that the two judges met Justice Bobde on Friday evening.
The statement said the in-house committee, which is deliberating on the issue concerning the CJI, deliberates on its own without any input from any other judge of the apex court.
A report in a leading newspaper Sunday stated that justices Nariman and Chandrachud had met Justice Bobde and had expressed their view that the three-member committee should not go ahead with the proceeding ex parte.
The former woman employee of the apex court, who levelled the sexual harassment allegations, had opted herself out of the inquiry raising several grievances, including denial of permission to have her lawyer during proceedings.
A source had earlier said the woman opted not to participate in the proceedings despite being told about consequence that the committee can go ahead with its task ex-parte. She had appeared before the panel for three days.
Justice Bobde on April 23 had told PTI, "This is going to be an in-house procedure which does not contemplate representation of advocate on behalf of parties. It is not a formal judicial proceeding."
He had clarified that there is no time frame to complete the inquiry and future course of action will depend on "what comes out of the inquiry" which will be "confidential".
The newspaper has stated that justices Nariman and Chandrachud had suggested appointment of an advocate as an amicus curie for assisting the in-house committee.
Besides Justice Bobde, other members in the committee are two women judges of the apex court -- justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee.
An official source Sunday that the in-house panel deliberates on its own and if any judge, as reported, makes any suggestion, it amounts to interference in proceedings of the committee.
The statement said, "It is most unfortunate that a leading newspaper has chosen to state that justices RF Nariman and DY Chandrachud together met Justice SA Bobde on Friday evening, i.e. on May 3, 2019. This is wholly incorrect. The in-house committee which is deliberating on the issue concerning the CJI, deliberates on its own without any input of any other judge of this court."
Chief Justice Gogoi had Wednesday appeared before an in-house inquiry committee looking into allegations of sexual harassment levelled against him by a former woman employee of the Supreme Court.
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.
