The sexual harassment charges levelled by a former Supreme Court employee against the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi may be correct or not, but the way the court dealt with the charges was wrong. The court held an extraordinary special sitting and the bench, presided over by the CJI himself and consisting of Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Sanjeev Khanna, took up the former employee’s complaint about unwanted sexual advances by Justice Gogoi and the police harassment she and her family underwent after she rebuffed him. The CJI and the bench described the complaint as an attack on the independence of the judiciary. Justice Gogoi termed the charges as too low for denial, and even cast aspersions on the woman.
It was inappropriate on the part of the CJI to be a part of the bench which took up a complaint against him and make observations and comments in his own defence. It amounts to the CJI being a judge in his own cause. Strangely, the CJI did not sign the order issued by the bench, though he sat on it. The complainant was not given an opportunity to present her case. The bench decided that the charges were “wild and scandalous’’ and would damage the reputation of the judiciary. How does the court make such an observation without hearing the complainant? It also advised the media to exercise restraint and decide what should or should not be published. If it is a suggestion for self-censorship, it is wrong because public interest is involved in the charges made. Justice Gogoi has not impressed the nation with his responses and comments. He hinted that the charges may be the result of a conspiracy and there may be a bigger force at work to “deactivate the office of the Chief Justice of India’’. Justice Gogoi owes it to the nation to name those who, according to him, want to ‘deactivate’ the CJI’s office. The court has, in fact, the power and responsibility to act against them.
It has now come to light that there is no existing mechanism to investigate sexual harassment or misconduct charges against the CJI. According to the court’s in-house procedure, it is the CJI who investigates complaints against judges and creates internal committees to look into such charges. It is silent on the mechanism for investigation of complaints against the CJI. In any case, the procedure, the law or any guidelines do not envisage a public hearing without notice to the complainant. There is the need for a credible and independent investigation into the charges, which should not be influenced by the comments already made on the matter. If there is a conspiracy against the court, that should be brought to light.