india

Updated: May 09, 2019 08:44 IST

Groups of people—most of them women students, activists, academics and lawyers—staged a protest on Wednesday in New Delhi’s Connaught Place against the alleged “violation of procedure” in connection with the sexual harassment allegation against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi. Police removed as many as 17 protesters from Block A and detained at the Mandir Marg police station for three hours.

“Our protest was not against an individual, but against the violation of procedure in connection with the CJI sexual harassment case. We are fighting to have a better procedure in place,” Amrita Johri, a Delhi-based RTI activist who was a part of the protests, said.

Another protester, Annie Raja, a women’s rights activist, said, “The woman in this case could not appear for a cross examination before the inquiry committee because she was not allowed to be accompanied by a lawyer. Now that the committee has prepared a report, she is being denied a copy of it. This is violation of procedure and it will set a wrong precedent for all sexual harassment cases.”

According to the police, the protesters were asked to move to Jantar Mantar, and when they refused, they were detained in adherence to a standing order of the Delhi Police and Supreme Court guidelines which allow Section 144 (prohibitory order against gatherings in public places) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be invoked in such cases. “It was a law and order issue due to which we had to detain 17 protesters. They were released soon after,” DCP (New Delhi) Madhur Verma said.

Meanwhile, a statement purportedly issued by the Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association surfaced on social media. It said: “We express solidarity with the CJI. We have never seen these kind of allegations against the judiciary. We all have been working here for years but we have never come across these kind of allegations.”

On Monday, a three-member inquiry committee dismissed a complaint of sexual harassment registered against Gogoi by a former court employee. The court’s secretary general said the committee found “no substance in the allegations” made by the 35-year-old woman in the complaint sent to 22 judges on April 19. The court official also said that the inquiry committee’s report was not liable to be made public.