india

Updated: May 07, 2019 23:39 IST

A day after a three-member in-house committee of Supreme Court judges led by justice SA Bobde cleared Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment charges, the complainant, a former employee of the apex court, wrote to the panel on Tuesday seeking a copy of its report.

In her letter addressed to the three judges — justices Bobde, Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra — the complainant asserted her right to get a copy of the committee’s report. Not providing her a copy “would be a violation of the principles of natural justice and a complete travesty of justice”, she wrote in the letter distributed to the media.

“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. Besides this, as is being reported by the media, if a copy of the report is being given to the CJI directly or indirectly, I am entitled to a copy thereof in any case,” the complainant wrote.

“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 added.

The former staffer cited the Delhi high court judgment in the judges assets case and attacked the decision of the committee to not give her a copy of their report.

In 2010, a three-judge bench of the HC, comprising Justice AP Shah, Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice S Murlidhar, upheld that the Chief Justice of India and the Supreme Court were public authorities under the definition of Right of Information Act and have a duty to furnish information to citizens with regard to administration of justice.

The matter has been challenged in the Supreme Court and has been pending for the last nine years.

The Supreme Court committee has relied on a 2003 verdict of the court in the Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India case, wherein it had been held that a panel’s findings cannot be shared. Assailing the committee’s stand, the complainant said the judgment relied on by the committee was one that predated the Right to Information Act, 2005.

And “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”, wrote the complainant.

Earlier in the day, members of civil right groups and women lawyers held a demonstration outside the Supreme Court to protest against the procedure adopted by the three-judge committee and the clean chit given to CJI Gogoi. Around 55 protesters were subsequently detained by Delhi police after it clamped orders banning public assembly of five or more people. “There was a lot of police bandobast when we reached in the morning. They had water cannon, and buses readied. As soon as we started raising slogans, pulled out our placards, and began to distribute press releases to the media present, the police said that Section 144 has been imposed... There were two buses (full) of protesters taken to the police station. They didn’t give us an answer of how long we would be kept,” Vani Subramanian, member of a womens’ rights organisation Saheli, said.

“We went to the SC to protest against the Bobde (in-house) committee report... The committee didn’t allow the complainant’s lawyer to be present in the hearing, when she opted out, they said they would proceed ex-parte. They didn’t even submit the final report to her, but to the CJI, the purported accused. And when the SC does this, that’s a really dark day. That’s what we had gone to protest,” she added.

Meanwhile, AK Patnaik, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, who has been given the task of probing an alleged conspiracy angle to the implication of CJI Gogoi in the sexual harassment case, said that he would be beginning his probe “in a couple of days”.

The complainant in Tuesday’s letter, which is available with Hindustan Times, also expressed her disappointment on the findings of the committee.

“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,” she wrote in her letter.

She withdrew from the proceedings after participating in them on two occasions, saying she doubted if she would receive justice from the panel, which continued with the hearing ex parte.

The complainant also rued the fact that despite being a victim she was treated as an outsider and basic principles of justice were not followed in her case. “From the beginning I have been treated as an outsider, I have not been informed of the procedure, I have not been informed of my basic rights and obligations with regard to the inquiry proceedings.”