You know the latest Indian
high functionary who faces allegations of sexual misconduct - it doesn't get
bigger than this, at least for now. He is the Chief Justice of India Ranjan
Gogoi who is accused of sexual harassment by a former woman
employee of the supreme court.
Denying the allegations, the
Chief Justice wondered whether a 'bigger force' might be at work to
"deactivate the office of the Chief Justice of India" and he regretted
that "things have gone too far". You would empathise with him if you
sniff the air over India's public life and sense your conscience, keeping aside
any lawyerly instincts in you.
True, Chief
Justice Ranjan Gogoi did not quite realise an earlier attempt to
denigrate the office he now holds, when Justice Dipak Misra was his
predecessor Chief Justice in the same court. That was in Jan. 2018 when Justice
Gogoi, as the next CJI in line, joined three other sitting judges of the
supreme court to call a press conference and voice their grievance publicly
against Chief Justice Dipak Misra on administrative issues. Doing that was a
blatant indiscretion for a judge, apart from anything more as it could be. If
you faulted Justice Gogoi for such indiscretion you did it for a higher
cause - to cherish the independence and dignity of the office of India's
Chief Justice. It is that higher cause that tells you now to back him and
help him stand tall and uphold the prestige of his present office as Chief
Justice of India.
It should have been really
hard for Justice Ranjan Gogoi to live down his image in the backdrop of that
infamous press meet and then, after he became CJI, establish himself as an
upright no-nonsense non-partisan head of the nation's judiciary, clearing any
lurking doubts on the way. It is a transformation for the good, and now he
needs and deserves our support.
When Chief Justice Dipak
Misra headed the supreme court, surely a 'bigger force' was at work
against him. That was a desperate political force that tried to get him impeached
but failed. Don't be surprised if the same political force has grown
more desperate and is turning against the current Chief Justice Ranjan
Gogoi who has been straightforward and has given clear signs of independence.
No marks for answering this no-brainer: which political party as of today will
be most troubled by an independent chief justice leading the supreme court, and
so it could be behind or alongside any move to shame and intimidate him? You’ll
get it right - though you may say it or hide it depending on your political
affiliation and how clean you keep your conscience.
Some clever lawyers and their tutored political clients might ask with a chuckle, "What's the proof for the
'bigger force' Chief Justice Gogoi suspects?" Well, the bigger force
that rooted for Justice Ranjan Gogoi before his elevation as Chief
Justice of India and applauded his joint press conference
against the previous Chief Justice, does not stand with him now.
That force cannot remain aloof or silent, and the only
thing it should be doing now is this: work against Chief Justice Ranjan
Gogoi, because after his elevation as the top most judge he has
belied some expectations and he functions fairly and independently.
Remember the unforgettable Justice Kurian Joseph? He was one of the four sitting judges of
the supreme court who appeared at their joint press meet against the then
Chief Justice Dipak Misra. Quickly after his retirement, Kurian Joseph
was interviewed on television and by newspapers when he dropped a bombshell. He
said that he and the other three press-conference
judges, as also many other unnamed brother judges and the media
too, had perceived that Chief Justice Dipak Misra was under some external
influence and was losing his independence. In the same breath, Kurian
Joseph said with a straight face that he or anybody else could not identify
that external influence and could only perceive its presence. Did any of the
other sources Kurian Joseph claimed as sharing his perception on Chief Justice
Dipak Misra come out to confirm his assertion? No.
Through his post-retirement
interviews, did Kurian Joseph severely assault the dignity of the leader of
India's judiciary? Absolutely. Did he furnish any scrap of proof? Nothing,
as he owned up. Was
he, for what he expressed, in contempt of the supreme court? Yes - he was just lucky
not to be tried for contempt. Did television channels and newspapers, and other
prominent lawyers and critics who fault Chief Justice Gogoi at this moment, criticise Kurian
Joseph at that time for his vague and flimsy allegation against Chief
Justice Dipak Misra? No, not at all. Now, don't you see who the chief actors
are in the 'bigger force' Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi spoke about as a real
threat to an independent judiciary? India should beware, or pay a heavy price.
Let's also remember that with right
objectives we have made some wrong laws, conferring excessive rights on some
groups of persons and resulting in excessive disabilities on another group of
persons. We don't find any significant betterment or upliftment of the
group that is given such excessive rights, but we see some mischief makers
among that group uncontrollably abuse their special rights and torment
their victims. One such law gives excessive rights to women, enabling them to
name a man with an allegation of the widely-defined ‘rape’ or related offences but
restraining all from revealing her name and identity. Any sexual offender should be severely punished.
But there is no justification for
leaving an open field for tormenting innocent men or keeping men in fear of
being named and shamed - for as long as it goes -
by mischievous women who could remain anonymous or by any 'bigger force' partnering
with such a woman to intimidate a man who doesn't yield to that force.
Many men would wish they don’t work closely with women at offices and risk false charges of any kind of sexual harassment coming at them later to settle personal scores. This is truer with men supervising women in the workplace since anybody likes to go around, not near, a suspected pitfall. Even a judge, even the Chief Justice of India, has to watch out. This is due to the nature of ordinary humans in any country, race or religion, to abuse a benefit or advantage and score over others if there is no effective check. There is no gender bias in this view.
Many men would wish they don’t work closely with women at offices and risk false charges of any kind of sexual harassment coming at them later to settle personal scores. This is truer with men supervising women in the workplace since anybody likes to go around, not near, a suspected pitfall. Even a judge, even the Chief Justice of India, has to watch out. This is due to the nature of ordinary humans in any country, race or religion, to abuse a benefit or advantage and score over others if there is no effective check. There is no gender bias in this view.
If you read the complaint of
the former woman employee of the supreme court, you’ll find that the offence she
details and describes comes close to the legal definition for the offence of rape though
she has not used that term. That’s why
the media - in compliance with a perceived legal prohibition - has not published the accuser’s name, but anyone is free to mention
the name of CJI Ranjan Gogoi. If you, whether a man or woman, feel he has been falsely and maliciously
accused, you cannot know the identity of the dubious complainant even if you
just wish to curse her for her motive. The offence allegedly took place in
October 2018, the complainant later faced a departmental enquiry on some
unrelated charges and she was dismissed from the supreme court in December 2018.
Now, on 19th April 2019, she has come out with a sexual harassment charge against the CJI.
As Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi
remarked, "things have gone too far". And so, the complaint against him has to be prudently
handled. But surely the time has come to
insulate all judges of the supreme court, as long as they are in office, from any
criminal proceeding. Like the President
and Governor of a State have such protection, judges of the supreme court need
it for more weighty reasons. When some thirty Governors of our States, who are mostly retired politicians, are kept out of any criminal prosecution with no harm occurring to anyone, do it for all supreme court judges too.
As we should take care in the selection of upright independent judges to the supreme court, they should not also be left vulnerable to easy threats of blackmail and intimidation when they are in office. We need a sensible balancing of the public interest, and we should fashion our laws accordingly. After all, we know what some nasty politicians and cunning businessmen are capable of, and to what lengths they may go, to subdue a judge who may be the last hurdle on their mad run. Let’s not be fake and pretentious. Let’s be real and honest.
As we should take care in the selection of upright independent judges to the supreme court, they should not also be left vulnerable to easy threats of blackmail and intimidation when they are in office. We need a sensible balancing of the public interest, and we should fashion our laws accordingly. After all, we know what some nasty politicians and cunning businessmen are capable of, and to what lengths they may go, to subdue a judge who may be the last hurdle on their mad run. Let’s not be fake and pretentious. Let’s be real and honest.
* * * * *
Copyright © R.
Veera Raghavan 2019
Very balanced and correct approach to the issue. My only concern is that CJI should not have been on the Saturday morning hearing and there should have been a lady judge in the hearing and a process should be made to define course of action when such sexual harassment complaint is against CJI.
ReplyDeleteWell written and balanced article, no doubt. However, the Roman Maxim "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?" ("Who will guard the guardian") comes to mind. The CJ's reaction, I felt, was drastic and immature. If he had only acted in a more mature manner and stated that he was open to any enquiry, instead of constituting a bench with himself on it, he would have sent out a better message to everyone, especially the common man. He, of all, should have known that the basic injunction of law is that a man cannot be the judge of his own cause! As far as the height of office is concerned, when Bill Clinton, who held the most powerful office in the world, was accused by Monica Lewinsky, the manner in which the issue was dealt with was different. Why not the Chief Justice?
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, your article is good and made good reading. Regards, Sunder.
Fine. Why did he sit on the Saturday bench? Was that not plain ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteIf he is innocent and the allegations are false, he should have followed the due process of law to establish the truth, prove the falsity of the allegations and punish the guilty! But by not following the age-old maxim, "Nemo judex in causa sua", he has violated the Principles of Natural Justice, and he has lost the credibility to hold on this high post. Moreover, the illegal and unjust manner the complainant has been harassed and dismissed will put every other internal disciplinary proceedings to shame! Being an Inquiry Officer myself in my organisation's Departmental Inquiries, I cannot think of hurriedly holding an ex-parte hearing when the Charge Sheeted Officer was hospitalised by the Department's own Staff, and then arrange for her dismissal!!! SHAME, SHAME, SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe messy issue has been made messier by the CJI sitting on the Saturday bench and making irrelevant and uncalled for He should have thought of the dignity of the CJIs officer before partaking the infamous Press Conference
ReplyDeleteWhile you rightly point out that women have been given exceptional powers, the courts have always sided with them and ruined the common man many a times and have rejected so many petitions regarding the illegality of such laws or to make these laws gender neutral. So basically, the court which had the power to fix the laws never did as it felt immune to the effects of these laws. In such a scenario, the court should also apply the same standards to itself which it has applied to other men outside the court, else it just loses credibility ( which it anyway has very little of at present)
ReplyDeleteHow does he meet the facts of the extra and unwarranted benefits/closeness he gave/showed to her?
ReplyDeleteVery lucidly presented. But the larger issue here is the common man has already lost faith in SC. There is very little being done to restore the sanctity of the courts. It is all over now
ReplyDelete