Breaking News
WEB DESK / NEW DELHI
Woman who accused Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi of sex harassment says won’t appear for in-house inquiry due to “concerns”
Former Supreme Court staffer has refused to participate in the in-house panel proceedings headed by SC judge Justice Bobde.
The complainant has alleged she was not allowed to have the presence of her lawyer in the in-house committee adding that she felt “intimidated and nervous in the presence of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and without having a lawyer or support person.”
She said she felt she was “not likely to get justice from this committee and so (she is) no longer participating in the proceedings.”
The complainant has cited the following reasons for her decision not to participate in the inquiry panel headed by Justice Bobde.
1. I have not been allowed to have presence of lawyer/support person despite my impaired hearing, nervousness and fear
2. There being no video or audio recording of the Committee proceedings
3. I have not been supplied even a copy of my statement as recorded on 26th and 29th April 2019
4. I was not informed about the procedure this committee is following.
The woman has also sought for the inquiry to be treated as a “formal inquiry and the Committee follow the letter and spirit of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act”.
The inquiry, which began on Friday, is in the nature of a departmental inquiry on the administrative side, and not a judicial inquiry. On Friday, the Secretary General of the Supreme Court was asked to be present with all relevant documents and had appeared before the committee.
The inquiry committee has been set up to inquire into the 28-page complaint – that also contains an affidavit – where the woman has alleged sexual harassment by the CJI.
Last week, Justice N V Ramana, who was part of the 3-member in-house inquiry panel recused himself from hearing the case after the complainant wrote a letter to the panel expressing reservation over his inclusion in the committee on the ground that he is a close friend of Gogoi and a regular visitor to his house.
Full press release by the complainant
“In the Committee hearing that took place on 26th April 2019, the Judges in the committee told me that this was neither an in-house committee proceeding, nor a proceeding under the Vishakha Guidelines and that it was an informal proceeding. I was asked to narrate my account which I did to the best of my ability even though I felt quite intimidated and nervous in the presence of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and without having a lawyer or support person with me. I had also pointed out to the committee that I had lost hearing in one ear completely due to stress and I was undergoing daily treatment for the same.
As a result of this I was sometimes unable to hear what was being dictated by Hon’ble Justice Bobde to the court official as a record of my statements before the committee. Further the committee declined my request for video recording of the committee proceedings. I was also clearly told that no lawyer/support person could be present with me during the committee hearing. I was orally instructed that I should not disclose the proceedings of the committee to the media and was to not even share the proceedings with my lawyer Advocate Vrinda Grover. I was asked to appear before the Committee on 29th April for the next hearing”.
At the first hearing itself I had also placed an application before the Committee to summon the CDR and whatsapp call and chat records of two relevant mobile numbers. However the Committee did not accept my application on the first hearing. The same application was finally taken by the Committee on 30th April 2019, when feeling helpless and distressed I could no longer continue to participate in the Committee hearings After I left the first Committee hearing on the first day, I saw that the car I travelling by was being followed by two men on a motorcycle whose partial number I was able to note. Before the next hearing I wrote a detailed letter to the Hon’ble Committee members, narrating all this and again requesting that the proceedings of the committee be treated as a formal inquiry and the Committee follow the letter and spirit of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, and that I be permitted to be accompanied and assisted by Ms V. Grover, that I be allowed to produce evidence both oral and documentary with a right to cross examination and that my applications be taken on record. In the hearing that followed on the 29th April, I was again not allowed to have a lawyer/support person present with me. I was repeatedly asked by the committee as to why I had made this complaint of sexual harassment so late.