With 24 hours to go before the three-judge panel of the Supreme Court was to hear the alleged sexual misconduct complaint against the Chief Justice of India (CJI), one of the judges — Justice NV Ramana refused to take part in the proceeding — citing a letter by the victim, wherein she claimed that his proximity with the CJI might hamper the enquiry.
Later in the day, Justice Indu Malhotra replaced him on the panel. The panel now has a majority presence of women judges (2:1) and will meet the complainant in chambers on Friday.
Justice Ramana conveyed his decision to quit from the panel, which also has Justice Indira Banerjee on it, to panel Chairman Justice SA Bobde. Following Justice Ramana's exit, Justice Bobde held a meeting late Thursday evening and selected Justice Indu Malhotra to replace him.
The letter by the complainant to Justice Bobde on Wednesday disclosed two grounds to suspect fairness on the part of Justice Ramana. She said that Justice Ramana was a frequent visitor to the CJI's residence and is known to be close to him. Further, she alleged that the judge, at a conference in Hyderabad on April 20, spoke that despite allegations being levelled against judges, the independence and dignity of the judiciary must be protected.
Justice Ramana, in his letter to the in-house panel head, denied these charges and said, "My decision to recuse is only based on an intent to avoid any suspicion that this institution will not conduct itself in keeping with the highest standards of judicial propriety and wisdom."
He added, "It is the extraordinary nature of the complaint, and the evolving circumstances and discourse that underlies my decision to recuse and not the grounds cited by the complainant per se."
He even defended charges against him by calling the apprehensions of the complainant "misplaced". His speech dealt with allegations of incapacity raised against judges which should not let down judges who must act to uphold the dignity of the institution. Selective extracts of the speech were used to allege bias, which the judge termed sad and unfortunate.
Even on his closeness with CJI, the judge said that all judges are required to visit CJI in connection with several administrative duties assigned to them. Besides, judges also meet as family that promotes frank and free dialogue between them. The judge clarified in the end that his recusal should not be seen that the decision to appoint him was wrong in the first place.