Panel examines CJI Ranjan Gogoi in harassment probe

NEW DELHI: In an unprecedented step, CJI Ranjan Gogoi appeared before the inquiry by a three-judge panel headed by Justice S A Bobde and answered queries on the sexual harassment complaint against him by a dismissed woman employee of the Supreme Court.
After the woman complainant withdrew from the inquiry proceedings by the panel comprising of Justices Bobde, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, the panel decided to proceed ex parte (without all the parties being present). This was as per its decision conveyed to the complainant on April 26, the first day of the inquiry, that if she withdrew at any point of time, then the inquiry would go on ex parte. SC sources said she had agreed to this condition.
The panel on Wednesday issued a letter of request to the CJI to join the inquiry. Under the Civil Procedure Code, high constitutional office-holders like the President, PM and CJI are not issued summons to appear before an inquiry committee but are sent letters of request.
Responding to the request, CJI Gogoi appeared before the panel and answered questions put to him, SC sources said.
Sources said since the inquiry was into a complaint against the CJI, and the panel was set up with the approval of the full court meeting of all SC judges, the committee would in all likelihood submit its inquiry report to the full court.
The former junior court assistant, who was in employment of the SC from May 1, 2014 till her dismissal on December 21, 2018, had on April 19 written to SC judges seeking an inquiry into her alleged sexual harassment and consequent tormenting of her family members. In an unprecedented hearing on April 20, the CJI strongly refuted the charges and entrusted Justice Bobde with the administrative power to decide on the future course of action.
Justice Bobde constituted a three-judge committee headed by him and comprising Justices N V Ramana and Indira Banerjee. This was ratified by the full court meeting. But the complainant wrote to the three judges expressing reservations against the inclusion of Justice Ramana alleging that he was very close to CJI Gogoi. This was read to mean Justice Ramana’s exclusion would make the in-house panel acceptable to her.
In a three-page letter to Justice Bobde, Justice Ramana termed the complainant’s apprehensions “baseless” and said no litigant/complainant had a right to choose the forum of his/her choice. However, he recused himself from the panel.
On Justice Ramana’s exit, Justice Bobde drafted in Justice Indu Malhotra with the approval of the full court. The panel began proceedings on April 26 and the complainant recorded her statement, which continued on April 29. The very next day, she told the panel about her decision to walk out of the proceedings.
Her lawyers sent out a press release explaining why she was forced to disassociate from the proceedings. She said she was not allowed to be assisted by her lawyer Vrinda Grover before the panel, the proceedings were not video/audio recorded, a copy of her statement recorded by the panel on April 26 and 29 was not given to her, and she was not informed about the procedure followed by the committee.