The woman who accused Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment on Tuesday asked the committee that dismissed her complaint to give her a copy of their report.
On Monday, a three-member inquiry committee had rejected her complaint and the court’s secretary general said the panel had found “no substance in the allegations” made by the woman. The court official also said that the inquiry committee’s report was not liable to be made public.
“I am shocked that despite my detailed affidavit, ample corroborative evidence and clear, consistent statement before the committee reiterating my experience of sexual harassment and consequent victimisation, the committee has found ‘no substance’ in my complaint and affidavit,” the complainant said.
The 35-year-old complainant claimed that she was not informed of her basic rights, obligations or the procedure involved. “I am shocked that committee has come to an adverse finding against me despite the fact that I was compelled to withdraw from the committee since the committee did not observe even the most basic principles of natural justice,” she wrote. “From the beginning I have been treated as an outsider.”
The complainant said that she has a right to the copy of the report if Gogoi is given the same. “The in-house proceeding rules are now being used to deny me and the public a right to the report,” she said. “I find it rather strange that the complainant in a case of sexual harassment is not to be provided with a copy of the report which finds her complaint to be without substance and that my complaint has been held by the committee to be this without giving me any reasons for the same.”
She pointed out that the judgement cited in the report was given before the incorporation of the Right to Information Act. “In these circumstances I request you to kindly provide me with a copy of the report since I have a right to know how, why and on what basis have your Lordships found my complaint to have ‘no substance’,” she wrote.
On Monday, she had said that she was very disappointed, after the Supreme Court cleared Gogoi of the allegations earlier in the day. She had added that she was now “extremely scared and terrified”.
On April 19, she had sent her the complaint to 22 judges and called for an inquiry into the actions of Gogoi, who she said not only harassed her but was responsible for subsequent victimisation, which led to her and other members of her family losing their government jobs, as well as criminal cases being filed against them. However, on April 30, she withdrew from the inquiry as she had not been allowed to have a lawyer present and was not informed about the procedure that would be followed.
Also read: Why SC’s reasoning for not disclosing report of sexual harassment inquiry against CJI doesn’t fly
Respected Lordships,
On 6th May 2019 a Press Release issued by Secretary General of the Supreme Court stated,
“The in-House Committee has submitted its Report dated 5.5.2019, in accordance with the in-House Procedure, to the next senior Judge competent to receive the Report and also sent a copy to the Judge concerned, namely, the Chief Justice of India.
The In-House Committee has found no substance in the allegations contained in the Complaint dated 19.4.2019 of a former employee of the Supreme Court of India. Please take note that in case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India & Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 494, it has been held that the Report of a Committee constituted as a part of the In-House Procedure is not liable to be made public.
Secretary General
Supreme Court of India”
I am shocked that despite my detailed affidavit, ample corroborative evidence and clear, consistent statement before the Committee reiterating my experience of sexual harassment and consequent victimisation the Committee has found “no substance” in my complaint and affidavit. I am shocked that Committee has come to an adverse finding against me despite the fact that I was compelled to withdraw from the Committee since the committee did not observe even the most basic principles of natural justice. From the beginning I have been treated as an outsider, I have not been informed of the procedure, I have not been informed of my basic rights and obligations with regard to the inquiry proceedings. From the beginning there has been a lack of transparency in the functioning of the Committee and great prejudice is being caused to me repeatedly.
While in the first notice received from the committee and in the first hearing , despite repeatedly asking the Committee, I was not given any clarity on whether the present proceedings are in-house proceedings or not. However, the in-house proceeding rules are now being used to deny me and the public a right to the report. The Secretary Generals press note states that a copy of the report will not be made public because of the Supreme Court judgement in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India & Anr. (2003) 5 SCC 494. It appears from the press release that even I, the complainant, will not to be provided with a copy of the report.
I have a right to the report, the reasons for the same as well as copies of the depositions of any witnesses, any other persons or any other evidence considered by the Committee. Besides this, as is being reported by the media, if a copy of the report is being given to the CJI directly or indirectly, I am entitled to a copy thereof in any case. I find it rather strange that the complainant in a case of sexual harassment is not to be provided with a copy of the report which finds her complaint to be without substance and that my
complaint has been held by the committee to be this without giving me any reasons for the same. The Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 in Section 13 provides that both parties have a right to receive a copy of the Report. Not providing a copy to the complainant while holding her complaint to be unfounded would be a violation of the principles of natural justice and a complete travesty of justice. It is also respectfully pointed out that the judgement cited was given at a time prior to the Right to Information Act. Even according to the full bench judgment of the Delhi High court in the Assets disclosure case, such a report should be accessible to any citizen under the RTI. The full bench had held that even assets of judges would be accessible under RTI to any citizen.
In these circumstances I request you to kindly provide me with a copy of the report since I have a right to know how, why and on what basis have your Lordships found my complaint to have “no substance”
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!