Tale of 2 Judges
DALIT ONLINE – e News Weekly
Spreading the light of humanity & freedom
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.15..Issue.34........25 / 08 / 2019
Tale of Two Judges
- An appeal to all SCI Judges
Read the following cases of delhi judge and CJI gogoi. Law is same for both , however note the difference in law enforcement. Note the difference in steps to find out truth, legal prosecution, enquiry. Is CJI gogoi above law , constitution of India???
A honest person doesn't have to cover up anything, whereas a person who has committed wrong cover ups. This cover up act by gogoi itself proves he has committed wrong. Don't be party to his cover ups and criminals yourselves.
Gold medallist did the right thing. Do we commonners have true independence as enshrined in the constitution. NO. Practically there are same laws but law enforcement will be different for different persons even for same type of crime. Biggest Criminals are within Judiciary & Police service. They are afraid even to answer following questions :
INTERROGATE Judges & Police
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com/2019/03/interrogate-judges-and-police.html
Your's
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi
Sexual Harassment of Junior by Judge
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, dismissed a writ petition filed by a Judicial Officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Services, who is facing disciplinary proceedings alleging sexual harassment.
A Junior Judicial Assistant had filed a complaint against the judicial officer alleging sexual harassment at work place. When the matter reached the Full Court, the Judicial Officer was placed under suspension with immediate effect pending disciplinary proceeding contemplated against him. The judge approached the Apex court seeking to quash the proceedings of Internal Complaints Committee as well as Charge Sheet filed against him.
One of the contentions raised was that in view of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, there being an Inquiry Report by Internal Complaints Committee as envisaged by Sections 11 and 13, the High Court could not have taken a decision to initiate the inquiry or to suspend the judicial officer. The issues considered by the bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha were:
1. Whether the High Court is a disciplinary authority of the petitioner, competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and suspend him as per Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 and All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969?
2. Whether the decision of the Full Court on 13.07.2016 initiating enquiry against the petitioner and placing him under suspension was beyond jurisdiction?
3. Whether the Preliminary Inquiry Report submitted by Internal Complaints Committee dated 05.11.2016 ought to have been supplied to the petitioner and non-supply of such Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016 vitiated the entire proceedings?
Answering the first two issues, the bench observed that provisions of Sections 11 and 13 in no manner affect the control of the High Court under Article 235, which it has with respect to judicial officers as noted above.
"The power to suspend the judicial officer vests in the High Court. The Full Court of the High court is in no manner precluded from initiating disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and placing the petitioner under suspension on being satisfied that sufficient material existed. The High Court in its meeting dated 19.07.2016 has resolved to send the complaint of the employee to the Internal Complaints Committee and the Internal Complaints Committee having opined that inquiry need to be held, further steps were taken in accordance with Act, 2013."
With regard to the third issue, the bench noted that under Section 11(1) in the second proviso, the only contemplation is to make available a copy of the findings. Thus, when the report in which there are no findings, parties are not entitled to have the copy, the bench said while dismissing the petition.
For justice’s sake, My Lord
By Urvashi Butalia
With its opaque handling of the sexual harassment case against the Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court and its senior judges have not only failed the victim but also the larger public
As I write this, the Justice Ranjan Gogoi incident (where the Chief Justice of India was accused of sexual harassment by a junior member of his staff) has receded into the background. The media have given up reporting on it, the Committee has finished its secret work and has concluded that there was no substance in the complainant’s affidavit and things have, ostensibly, gone back to normal.
Except that they haven’t, really.
Somewhere out there is yet another woman who will carry a lifelong sense of injustice. She will join millions of others who carry a similar sense, but that fact will bring her no comfort. There will be no joy in knowing she is not alone. And we will have lost another chance to take that crucial next step towards understanding how to address this complex and confusing problem that confronts us today.
There’s no denying that the Supreme Court has long been seized of the seriousness of the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. This is why the Court responded so positively to the Vishaka petition and acted to frame the Vishaka Guidelines many years ago. The idea was that the Guidelines would make up for the absence of a law, until such time as the government could frame the required law.
Both things happened, and neither would have happened had both actors not had the political will to make this change.
And yet, both actors, the government and the Supreme Court, reneged on their commitment to gender justice in the recent case. If one accused the complainant of cooking up a conspiracy to target the judiciary, the other supported the Supreme Court’s accusation, and this before anything had been proved. They closed ranks.
Neither thought of that crucial matter: The need for transparency in your own functioning, and scrutiny of your behaviour, especially if you are the lawmakers.
Over the years, because we are such a class- conscious society, we’ve come to accept that the police will flout the law as often as they will impose it, that lawyers too will betray their own profession. But judges? And at the Supreme Court level? Until recently, this seemed to be unthinkable.
You might say that judges, too, are fallible. Or that those who framed the Vishaka Guidelines are not the same people who occupy the Supreme Court today.
But surely this is not about individuals, it is about institutions, it is about institutional ethics and honesty, institutional accountability. If institutions fail their citizens, what then is left?
The Supreme Court and its judges in particular have earned considerable respect in recent times for often being, in increasingly difficult times, the citizen’s only recourse.
That is why it is so difficult to understand why the process was so opaque and seemingly so biased. No one knows how the judges arrived at their decision, no one knows why the complainant was not allowed to have a lawyer. No one understands why the advice of their own colleagues was not listened to.
Even if these were technicalities and the judges in question had stuck to the letter of the law, as interpreted by them, there are other issues at stake. There’s that old piece of wisdom, that justice must be done but it must also be seen to be done. This can’t happen if everything is so opaque.
Over the last few years, as a number of cases of sexual harassment at the workplace have come to the fore, and women victims have begun to speak out, the complexity of the issues we are confronted with have also come increasingly to light.
How to deal with something that happened years ago? How to deal with anonymous accusations? Whose jurisdiction is it if someone working with you is accused of sexual harassment that happened years ago? How to deal with cases that inhabit that liminal space between coercion and consent? How to deal with changing relationships? What about generational differences? How to deal with employers saying they will not employ women any more?
Everyone needs guidance in this — both guidance and understanding. We need roadmaps, we need knowledge. What we do not need is opacity. We need an understanding that the issue we are confronted with involves a hard look at power relations, at patriarchies, at human relationships and more.
This is what women’s groups drew attention to during the recent incident. Time and again they urged that the principles of justice and fairness be followed: Set up an impartial enquiry, give everyone a hearing, take evidence into account, make a judgement and be transparent. It’s only then that people will believe you. Only then the interests of justice will be served. Our Supreme Court and our senior judges — both men and women — have sadly failed us in this.
Can we be blamed for thinking they’re just protecting their own?
20 questions for SC panel that cleared CJI of sexual harassment charges: Why the bias, rush to decide and secrecy?
The Supreme Court's special in-house committee that investigated the sexual harassment accusations against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has given its verdict — it found “no substance” in the allegations and has exonerated him completely. The Supreme Court’s secretary general issued a terse note on the subject that has exploded into a major controversy, with criticism mounting in mainstream and social media. There were public protests against the judgment in Delhi and Bengaluru on Tuesday, with many more cities expected to organise them in the coming days.
The committee’s judgment and the authorities’ subsequent behaviour has thrown up several troubling questions:
1. It reportedly took the committee just four sittings to arrive at a conclusion. Why was it in such a hurry to render a judgment?
2. Why did the committee not try to correct the imbalance in power between the accuser and accused in this unique case, by laying out a transparent process and providing adequate legal and other support to the complainant, or appoint an amicus curiae?
Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. News18
3. After the complainant rejected and withdrew from the committee’s proceedings, why didn’t the judges negotiate with her about her demands — all of which were anyway standard legal protocols — rather than immediately proceed without her?
4. Besides just the complainant and the CJI, did the committee speak to other pertinent witnesses like the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, or the police Station House Officer, who the complainant alleges took her to the CJI’s residence to make her apologise to the latter’s wife (the complainant says she has submitted a video recording of her interaction to the SHO)?
5. According to Hindustan Times, “the three-member committee looked only into sexual harassment allegations and did not go into the merits of the disciplinary action taken by the Supreme Court against the complainant. The woman was dismissed in December 2018 and she has claimed this was part of the harassment she faced.” If true, doesn’t this indicate a very partial investigation of the complainant’s grievances?
6. Hindustan Times reports that it has also learnt “that the panel has said in its findings that before 19 April, when she wrote to 22 judgesof the court, the complainant did not raise the allegation of sexual harassment or victimisation despite having an opportunity to do so when she challenged the disciplinary action in December 2018”. If true, doesn’t this indicate the committee’s flawed and biased approach as it tries to shame the complainant about not complaining earlier — a classic ruse to discredit sexual harassment accusers?
7. The committee has decided to keep its report secret based on a 16-year-old precedent set in the 2003 Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India case. Thus, the complainant herself has been denied any knowledge of the committee’s reasoning in arriving at its conclusion. Is there any way of appealing against this cover of secrecy, especially now that we have the RTI Act?
8. In her letter to the committee on 7 May, the complainant pointed out that the “Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 in Section 13 provides that both parties have a right to receive a copy of the report”. Will the committee at least follow this basic tenet of natural justice and provide its report to both the accuser and accused instead of just one of them?
9. The committee’s report was submitted to the CJI and the next senior judge, Justice Arun Mishra. According to some media reports, Justice Mishra can decide whether to present the report to the full court, since the committee was itself set up by a full court’s approval. How can the public appeal to Justice Mishra on this front?
10. As lawyer Gautam Bhatia has argued, if the committee’s ‘informality’ insulated it from any requirement to follow existing laws on investigating sexual harassment complaints, then surely its conclusions should also be considered just as informal and disposable?
11. Can the complainant separately sue the Supreme Court as an institution for denying her the due process laid down in current law for sexual harassment complaints at the workplace as per the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women at the Workplace Act and the Vishaka Guidelines (framed by the Supreme Court itself in 1997 to deal with workplace sexual harassment complaints)?
12. Do the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women at the Workplace Act and the Vishaka Guidelines apply to the Supreme Court as a workplace? If not, then what law should specifically guide sexual harassment complaints from Supreme Court employees?
13. In her press release subsequent to the committee’s judgement on 6 May, the complainant stated, “I and my family members remain vulnerable to the ongoing reprisals and attack.” What can she do to protect herself from any subsequent attacks?
14. How will this affect the ongoing case of alleged fraud against the complainant (which she claims was fabricated as part of the vendetta against her), where the police is seeking cancellation of her bail?
15. The complainant’s press release on 6 May also said, “My accusation of sexual harassment at the workplace and the consequent relentless victimisation and reprisals against me and my family are substantiated by documents and are verifiable.” Will she now release these to the public?
16. On Tuesday, the police declared a curfew under Section 144 around the Supreme Court to prevent public protests against the committee’s report. The police also detained more than 50 protesters, lawyers, activists and media persons for around four hours to prevent their legal and peaceful protests. Does Indians’ constitutional right to protest not apply when it comes to the Supreme Court?
17. The media reported that the in-house committee was instituted since “no other disciplinary proceedings or procedures have been envisaged in the Constitution against sitting high court and Supreme Court judges”. And as pointed out by legal journalist Murali Krishnan, the Supreme Court has a long history of protecting judges against cases and even intimidating their accusers. Doesn’t this need to urgently change? Isn’t it time we established a clearer investigative and disciplinary mechanism against sitting judges?
18. On 19 April, the complainant couriered an account of her allegations against the CJI to all 22 SC judges in a notarised 28-page affidavit with 108 pages of annexures. A full court on the administrative side approved the in-house committee of three judges to inquire into the allegations against the CJI. And according to media reports, Justice DY Chandrachud recently wrote a letter to the three-judge committee, expressing not just his own but more than 17 Supreme Court judges’ reservations about the committee’s working, asking it not to proceed anymore with the ex parte probe. Other media reports claimed that Justice Chandrachud was speaking for himself, with the Times of Indiareporting that many brother judges were upset with him for writing such a letter. Given all this, will our Supreme Court judges finally push for an external inquiry, since only that will now restore Indians’ faith in their Supreme Court’s impartiality towards and moral authority over them?
19. Most experts seem to think that the complainants’ one clear legalrecourse left is to invoke the CJI’s impeachment, which will require a motion in Parliament sponsored by 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. Given that Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, and probably the BJP, has thrown his weight behind the CJI, what will the political Opposition do on this issue during election season when everyone is watching their moves?
20. If the Supreme Court doesn’t do anything more about the complainant’s allegations, how can it expect to have any moral authority in giving judgments on sexual harassment or freedom of speech?
Delhi Police Cover up Crimes by Judges
To,
Honourable Police Commissioner
New Delhi.
Honourable sir ,
Please give me information about following under RTI Act :
1. Details of action taken against SCI judges Ranjan Gogoi, swatantra kumar , Ganguly , Judges involved in roost resort sex scandal on charges of sexual harassment against women. If not reasons for it. Please give me FIR number of each case.
2. List of public servants present and past MPs , IAS & IPS officers, etc with citizenship of foreign countries in addition to indian citizenship. Also give me list of public servants with spouses of foreign origin.
3. Details of action taken against SCI judge deepak mishra in medical college case , kalikho pul death statement. President of India Pranab mukherjee was also accused by kalikho pul. If not reasons for it.
4. Details of our present MPs , IAS & IPS officers facing criminal charges .
5. Details of action taken regarding charges made by CBI director Alok verma against his deputy Rakesh Asthana and vice versa. If not reasons for it.
6. Details of action taken against police who are aiding underworld don dawood ibrahim. If not reasons for it.
7. Details of action taken against reliance industries in relation to document leak in power , petroleum , coal ministries. If not reasons for it.
8. Details of action taken against journalists, lobbyists involved in Radia tape. If not reasons for it.
9. Does Smt.Sonia Gandhi & Shri.Rahul Gandhi have citizenship of foreign countries in addition to indian citizenship. Details please.
10. Does delhi police use third degree torture against detainees.
11. Details of action taken against public servants , ministers who aided terrorism at the expense of public exchequer. If not reasons for it.
Please read documents at following web pages and answer :
https://www.scribd.com/document/402134326/INTERROGATE-Judges-Police , https://www.scribd.com/document/399783839/India-Sponsored-Terrorists , https://www.scribd.com/document/412164943/CJI-in-Jail ,
Thank you
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi
Editorial : Contempt of Citizens by Judges
-Who will bell the cat ?
Our whole hearted respect to whole judiciary, honest few in judiciary, we want to state the following: Contempt of Court is used as a weapon by few judges to silence those seeking justice , equality. While handling a case one must look at the issue raised not at the social status of person raising it. Those persons may be wrong in the mode of presenting the cases , but one must look at the facts , root cause / issue. Judges & senior advocates are also human beings capable of doing exemplary deeds as well as prone to err just like others. There is a false notion that if one makes eloquent quotes , uses Latin lexicon he knows everything. Such people fail to understand and uphold basic tenets of our constitution , what is the use of their oratory ?
1.Selection of judges is not transparent. Significant number of those selected are related to seniors in one way or the other. They may be deserving but raises the question “ Are not any fit persons there in the bar who are not related to anybody but deserving ?”
2.A senior advocate by his privilege gets superfast hearing of his case at the cost of a poor litigant represented by a junior lawyer. For example a senior advocate is representing a movie producer in case related to movie screening he gets priority over a junior advocate representing a person who has suffered police torture or his land grabbing by Mafia, illegal dismissal from service ,etc. Thereby , Senior advocate & presiding judge will be violating the poor man's right of equitable justice. Due these senior advocates in some cases poor persons represented by junior lawyer are dead by the time of judgement or suffer irreparable loss. Who will bear the cost , responsibility for this injustice senior advocate or presiding judge ?
3.In India millions of people are barely surviving on a single piece meal a day, still they pay indirect tax to public exchequer. Judges enjoy relatively huge salary , perks still judges demanded more pay & perks. Don't they have human conscience ?
4.Corruption is rampant in judiciary just like other wings of government. This has been affirmed by former Supreme Court Judges themselves. Therefore all the judgements are not sacrosanct. Some may be and some may not be.
When issue of corruption was raised Justice Karnan was silenced by contempt of Court weapon , when disparity between senior & junior advocates was highlighted advocate M J Nedumpara was silenced by the contempt of Court weapon. When inhuman unjustified pay , perks by high court judges was questioned meghalaya journalist was Silenced by contempt of Court weapon. It clearly proves nervousness of those judges who are caught on the wrong foot. What is needed is transparency of judiciary , logically looking at the core issue raised. If the way of presenting the case is wrong punish them but only after settling core issue not by silencing the whistleblower. By silencing whistleblowers those judges are themselves making contempt of the very August office they hold , making contempt of constitution of India and contempt of citizens of India, what legal punishment for those erring judges ? Who will bell the cat ?
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761,
HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/ ,
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com/
Contact : editor@dalitonline.in , editor.dalitonline@gmail.com
Spreading the light of humanity & freedom
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.15..Issue.34........25 / 08 / 2019
Tale of Two Judges
- An appeal to all SCI Judges
Read the following cases of delhi judge and CJI gogoi. Law is same for both , however note the difference in law enforcement. Note the difference in steps to find out truth, legal prosecution, enquiry. Is CJI gogoi above law , constitution of India???
A honest person doesn't have to cover up anything, whereas a person who has committed wrong cover ups. This cover up act by gogoi itself proves he has committed wrong. Don't be party to his cover ups and criminals yourselves.
Gold medallist did the right thing. Do we commonners have true independence as enshrined in the constitution. NO. Practically there are same laws but law enforcement will be different for different persons even for same type of crime. Biggest Criminals are within Judiciary & Police service. They are afraid even to answer following questions :
INTERROGATE Judges & Police
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com/2019/03/interrogate-judges-and-police.html
Your's
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi
Sexual Harassment of Junior by Judge
The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, dismissed a writ petition filed by a Judicial Officer of Delhi Higher Judicial Services, who is facing disciplinary proceedings alleging sexual harassment.
A Junior Judicial Assistant had filed a complaint against the judicial officer alleging sexual harassment at work place. When the matter reached the Full Court, the Judicial Officer was placed under suspension with immediate effect pending disciplinary proceeding contemplated against him. The judge approached the Apex court seeking to quash the proceedings of Internal Complaints Committee as well as Charge Sheet filed against him.
One of the contentions raised was that in view of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, there being an Inquiry Report by Internal Complaints Committee as envisaged by Sections 11 and 13, the High Court could not have taken a decision to initiate the inquiry or to suspend the judicial officer. The issues considered by the bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha were:
1. Whether the High Court is a disciplinary authority of the petitioner, competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and suspend him as per Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 and All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969?
2. Whether the decision of the Full Court on 13.07.2016 initiating enquiry against the petitioner and placing him under suspension was beyond jurisdiction?
3. Whether the Preliminary Inquiry Report submitted by Internal Complaints Committee dated 05.11.2016 ought to have been supplied to the petitioner and non-supply of such Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016 vitiated the entire proceedings?
Answering the first two issues, the bench observed that provisions of Sections 11 and 13 in no manner affect the control of the High Court under Article 235, which it has with respect to judicial officers as noted above.
"The power to suspend the judicial officer vests in the High Court. The Full Court of the High court is in no manner precluded from initiating disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and placing the petitioner under suspension on being satisfied that sufficient material existed. The High Court in its meeting dated 19.07.2016 has resolved to send the complaint of the employee to the Internal Complaints Committee and the Internal Complaints Committee having opined that inquiry need to be held, further steps were taken in accordance with Act, 2013."
With regard to the third issue, the bench noted that under Section 11(1) in the second proviso, the only contemplation is to make available a copy of the findings. Thus, when the report in which there are no findings, parties are not entitled to have the copy, the bench said while dismissing the petition.
For justice’s sake, My Lord
By Urvashi Butalia
With its opaque handling of the sexual harassment case against the Chief Justice of India, the Supreme Court and its senior judges have not only failed the victim but also the larger public
As I write this, the Justice Ranjan Gogoi incident (where the Chief Justice of India was accused of sexual harassment by a junior member of his staff) has receded into the background. The media have given up reporting on it, the Committee has finished its secret work and has concluded that there was no substance in the complainant’s affidavit and things have, ostensibly, gone back to normal.
Except that they haven’t, really.
Somewhere out there is yet another woman who will carry a lifelong sense of injustice. She will join millions of others who carry a similar sense, but that fact will bring her no comfort. There will be no joy in knowing she is not alone. And we will have lost another chance to take that crucial next step towards understanding how to address this complex and confusing problem that confronts us today.
There’s no denying that the Supreme Court has long been seized of the seriousness of the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. This is why the Court responded so positively to the Vishaka petition and acted to frame the Vishaka Guidelines many years ago. The idea was that the Guidelines would make up for the absence of a law, until such time as the government could frame the required law.
Both things happened, and neither would have happened had both actors not had the political will to make this change.
And yet, both actors, the government and the Supreme Court, reneged on their commitment to gender justice in the recent case. If one accused the complainant of cooking up a conspiracy to target the judiciary, the other supported the Supreme Court’s accusation, and this before anything had been proved. They closed ranks.
Neither thought of that crucial matter: The need for transparency in your own functioning, and scrutiny of your behaviour, especially if you are the lawmakers.
Over the years, because we are such a class- conscious society, we’ve come to accept that the police will flout the law as often as they will impose it, that lawyers too will betray their own profession. But judges? And at the Supreme Court level? Until recently, this seemed to be unthinkable.
You might say that judges, too, are fallible. Or that those who framed the Vishaka Guidelines are not the same people who occupy the Supreme Court today.
But surely this is not about individuals, it is about institutions, it is about institutional ethics and honesty, institutional accountability. If institutions fail their citizens, what then is left?
The Supreme Court and its judges in particular have earned considerable respect in recent times for often being, in increasingly difficult times, the citizen’s only recourse.
That is why it is so difficult to understand why the process was so opaque and seemingly so biased. No one knows how the judges arrived at their decision, no one knows why the complainant was not allowed to have a lawyer. No one understands why the advice of their own colleagues was not listened to.
Even if these were technicalities and the judges in question had stuck to the letter of the law, as interpreted by them, there are other issues at stake. There’s that old piece of wisdom, that justice must be done but it must also be seen to be done. This can’t happen if everything is so opaque.
Over the last few years, as a number of cases of sexual harassment at the workplace have come to the fore, and women victims have begun to speak out, the complexity of the issues we are confronted with have also come increasingly to light.
How to deal with something that happened years ago? How to deal with anonymous accusations? Whose jurisdiction is it if someone working with you is accused of sexual harassment that happened years ago? How to deal with cases that inhabit that liminal space between coercion and consent? How to deal with changing relationships? What about generational differences? How to deal with employers saying they will not employ women any more?
Everyone needs guidance in this — both guidance and understanding. We need roadmaps, we need knowledge. What we do not need is opacity. We need an understanding that the issue we are confronted with involves a hard look at power relations, at patriarchies, at human relationships and more.
This is what women’s groups drew attention to during the recent incident. Time and again they urged that the principles of justice and fairness be followed: Set up an impartial enquiry, give everyone a hearing, take evidence into account, make a judgement and be transparent. It’s only then that people will believe you. Only then the interests of justice will be served. Our Supreme Court and our senior judges — both men and women — have sadly failed us in this.
Can we be blamed for thinking they’re just protecting their own?
20 questions for SC panel that cleared CJI of sexual harassment charges: Why the bias, rush to decide and secrecy?
The Supreme Court's special in-house committee that investigated the sexual harassment accusations against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has given its verdict — it found “no substance” in the allegations and has exonerated him completely. The Supreme Court’s secretary general issued a terse note on the subject that has exploded into a major controversy, with criticism mounting in mainstream and social media. There were public protests against the judgment in Delhi and Bengaluru on Tuesday, with many more cities expected to organise them in the coming days.
The committee’s judgment and the authorities’ subsequent behaviour has thrown up several troubling questions:
1. It reportedly took the committee just four sittings to arrive at a conclusion. Why was it in such a hurry to render a judgment?
2. Why did the committee not try to correct the imbalance in power between the accuser and accused in this unique case, by laying out a transparent process and providing adequate legal and other support to the complainant, or appoint an amicus curiae?
Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. News18
3. After the complainant rejected and withdrew from the committee’s proceedings, why didn’t the judges negotiate with her about her demands — all of which were anyway standard legal protocols — rather than immediately proceed without her?
4. Besides just the complainant and the CJI, did the committee speak to other pertinent witnesses like the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, or the police Station House Officer, who the complainant alleges took her to the CJI’s residence to make her apologise to the latter’s wife (the complainant says she has submitted a video recording of her interaction to the SHO)?
5. According to Hindustan Times, “the three-member committee looked only into sexual harassment allegations and did not go into the merits of the disciplinary action taken by the Supreme Court against the complainant. The woman was dismissed in December 2018 and she has claimed this was part of the harassment she faced.” If true, doesn’t this indicate a very partial investigation of the complainant’s grievances?
6. Hindustan Times reports that it has also learnt “that the panel has said in its findings that before 19 April, when she wrote to 22 judgesof the court, the complainant did not raise the allegation of sexual harassment or victimisation despite having an opportunity to do so when she challenged the disciplinary action in December 2018”. If true, doesn’t this indicate the committee’s flawed and biased approach as it tries to shame the complainant about not complaining earlier — a classic ruse to discredit sexual harassment accusers?
7. The committee has decided to keep its report secret based on a 16-year-old precedent set in the 2003 Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India case. Thus, the complainant herself has been denied any knowledge of the committee’s reasoning in arriving at its conclusion. Is there any way of appealing against this cover of secrecy, especially now that we have the RTI Act?
8. In her letter to the committee on 7 May, the complainant pointed out that the “Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 in Section 13 provides that both parties have a right to receive a copy of the report”. Will the committee at least follow this basic tenet of natural justice and provide its report to both the accuser and accused instead of just one of them?
9. The committee’s report was submitted to the CJI and the next senior judge, Justice Arun Mishra. According to some media reports, Justice Mishra can decide whether to present the report to the full court, since the committee was itself set up by a full court’s approval. How can the public appeal to Justice Mishra on this front?
10. As lawyer Gautam Bhatia has argued, if the committee’s ‘informality’ insulated it from any requirement to follow existing laws on investigating sexual harassment complaints, then surely its conclusions should also be considered just as informal and disposable?
11. Can the complainant separately sue the Supreme Court as an institution for denying her the due process laid down in current law for sexual harassment complaints at the workplace as per the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women at the Workplace Act and the Vishaka Guidelines (framed by the Supreme Court itself in 1997 to deal with workplace sexual harassment complaints)?
12. Do the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women at the Workplace Act and the Vishaka Guidelines apply to the Supreme Court as a workplace? If not, then what law should specifically guide sexual harassment complaints from Supreme Court employees?
13. In her press release subsequent to the committee’s judgement on 6 May, the complainant stated, “I and my family members remain vulnerable to the ongoing reprisals and attack.” What can she do to protect herself from any subsequent attacks?
14. How will this affect the ongoing case of alleged fraud against the complainant (which she claims was fabricated as part of the vendetta against her), where the police is seeking cancellation of her bail?
15. The complainant’s press release on 6 May also said, “My accusation of sexual harassment at the workplace and the consequent relentless victimisation and reprisals against me and my family are substantiated by documents and are verifiable.” Will she now release these to the public?
16. On Tuesday, the police declared a curfew under Section 144 around the Supreme Court to prevent public protests against the committee’s report. The police also detained more than 50 protesters, lawyers, activists and media persons for around four hours to prevent their legal and peaceful protests. Does Indians’ constitutional right to protest not apply when it comes to the Supreme Court?
17. The media reported that the in-house committee was instituted since “no other disciplinary proceedings or procedures have been envisaged in the Constitution against sitting high court and Supreme Court judges”. And as pointed out by legal journalist Murali Krishnan, the Supreme Court has a long history of protecting judges against cases and even intimidating their accusers. Doesn’t this need to urgently change? Isn’t it time we established a clearer investigative and disciplinary mechanism against sitting judges?
18. On 19 April, the complainant couriered an account of her allegations against the CJI to all 22 SC judges in a notarised 28-page affidavit with 108 pages of annexures. A full court on the administrative side approved the in-house committee of three judges to inquire into the allegations against the CJI. And according to media reports, Justice DY Chandrachud recently wrote a letter to the three-judge committee, expressing not just his own but more than 17 Supreme Court judges’ reservations about the committee’s working, asking it not to proceed anymore with the ex parte probe. Other media reports claimed that Justice Chandrachud was speaking for himself, with the Times of Indiareporting that many brother judges were upset with him for writing such a letter. Given all this, will our Supreme Court judges finally push for an external inquiry, since only that will now restore Indians’ faith in their Supreme Court’s impartiality towards and moral authority over them?
19. Most experts seem to think that the complainants’ one clear legalrecourse left is to invoke the CJI’s impeachment, which will require a motion in Parliament sponsored by 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members. Given that Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, and probably the BJP, has thrown his weight behind the CJI, what will the political Opposition do on this issue during election season when everyone is watching their moves?
20. If the Supreme Court doesn’t do anything more about the complainant’s allegations, how can it expect to have any moral authority in giving judgments on sexual harassment or freedom of speech?
Delhi Police Cover up Crimes by Judges
To,
Honourable Police Commissioner
New Delhi.
Honourable sir ,
Please give me information about following under RTI Act :
1. Details of action taken against SCI judges Ranjan Gogoi, swatantra kumar , Ganguly , Judges involved in roost resort sex scandal on charges of sexual harassment against women. If not reasons for it. Please give me FIR number of each case.
2. List of public servants present and past MPs , IAS & IPS officers, etc with citizenship of foreign countries in addition to indian citizenship. Also give me list of public servants with spouses of foreign origin.
3. Details of action taken against SCI judge deepak mishra in medical college case , kalikho pul death statement. President of India Pranab mukherjee was also accused by kalikho pul. If not reasons for it.
4. Details of our present MPs , IAS & IPS officers facing criminal charges .
5. Details of action taken regarding charges made by CBI director Alok verma against his deputy Rakesh Asthana and vice versa. If not reasons for it.
6. Details of action taken against police who are aiding underworld don dawood ibrahim. If not reasons for it.
7. Details of action taken against reliance industries in relation to document leak in power , petroleum , coal ministries. If not reasons for it.
8. Details of action taken against journalists, lobbyists involved in Radia tape. If not reasons for it.
9. Does Smt.Sonia Gandhi & Shri.Rahul Gandhi have citizenship of foreign countries in addition to indian citizenship. Details please.
10. Does delhi police use third degree torture against detainees.
11. Details of action taken against public servants , ministers who aided terrorism at the expense of public exchequer. If not reasons for it.
Please read documents at following web pages and answer :
https://www.scribd.com/document/402134326/INTERROGATE-Judges-Police , https://www.scribd.com/document/399783839/India-Sponsored-Terrorists , https://www.scribd.com/document/412164943/CJI-in-Jail ,
Thank you
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi
Editorial : Contempt of Citizens by Judges
-Who will bell the cat ?
Our whole hearted respect to whole judiciary, honest few in judiciary, we want to state the following: Contempt of Court is used as a weapon by few judges to silence those seeking justice , equality. While handling a case one must look at the issue raised not at the social status of person raising it. Those persons may be wrong in the mode of presenting the cases , but one must look at the facts , root cause / issue. Judges & senior advocates are also human beings capable of doing exemplary deeds as well as prone to err just like others. There is a false notion that if one makes eloquent quotes , uses Latin lexicon he knows everything. Such people fail to understand and uphold basic tenets of our constitution , what is the use of their oratory ?
1.Selection of judges is not transparent. Significant number of those selected are related to seniors in one way or the other. They may be deserving but raises the question “ Are not any fit persons there in the bar who are not related to anybody but deserving ?”
2.A senior advocate by his privilege gets superfast hearing of his case at the cost of a poor litigant represented by a junior lawyer. For example a senior advocate is representing a movie producer in case related to movie screening he gets priority over a junior advocate representing a person who has suffered police torture or his land grabbing by Mafia, illegal dismissal from service ,etc. Thereby , Senior advocate & presiding judge will be violating the poor man's right of equitable justice. Due these senior advocates in some cases poor persons represented by junior lawyer are dead by the time of judgement or suffer irreparable loss. Who will bear the cost , responsibility for this injustice senior advocate or presiding judge ?
3.In India millions of people are barely surviving on a single piece meal a day, still they pay indirect tax to public exchequer. Judges enjoy relatively huge salary , perks still judges demanded more pay & perks. Don't they have human conscience ?
4.Corruption is rampant in judiciary just like other wings of government. This has been affirmed by former Supreme Court Judges themselves. Therefore all the judgements are not sacrosanct. Some may be and some may not be.
When issue of corruption was raised Justice Karnan was silenced by contempt of Court weapon , when disparity between senior & junior advocates was highlighted advocate M J Nedumpara was silenced by the contempt of Court weapon. When inhuman unjustified pay , perks by high court judges was questioned meghalaya journalist was Silenced by contempt of Court weapon. It clearly proves nervousness of those judges who are caught on the wrong foot. What is needed is transparency of judiciary , logically looking at the core issue raised. If the way of presenting the case is wrong punish them but only after settling core issue not by silencing the whistleblower. By silencing whistleblowers those judges are themselves making contempt of the very August office they hold , making contempt of constitution of India and contempt of citizens of India, what legal punishment for those erring judges ? Who will bell the cat ?
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761,
HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/ ,
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com/
Contact : editor@dalitonline.in , editor.dalitonline@gmail.com
posted by DALIT online @ 4:41 AM
<< Home