A grievance of sexual harassment in opposition to the sitting Chief Justice of India became sent (together with an affidavit and different supporting proof) to the opposite sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India, soliciting for the constitution of an inquiry committee of senior retired judges to research and adjudicate those extreme allegations.
The legal, institutional response to this kind of grievance as mandated under the “In-House Procedure” relevant to Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, in conjunction with the Sexual Harassment of Women on the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act) Act, (“POSH Act”) examine with the Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations, 2013, is for the detailed inquiry committee to take the focus of the complaint, constitute an inquiry committee and supply observe to the respondent as to the initiation of such lawsuits.
Today, in an unparalleled flow past the scope of any regarded method or precept of law – whether beneath the “in-residence manner” or inside the POSH Act or the Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations – a note changed into issued on the Supreme Court website that a ‘unique bench’ turned into being constituted to preserve courtroom at 10:30 am at the citing by using the solicitor preferred, at the same time as the court has been on vacation due to the fact Wednesday and is scheduled to reopen simplest on Monday.
The notice for the hearing
The bench comprised 3 judges of the Supreme Court, which includes the respondent himself:
1. Why turned into the respondent himself sitting in judgment over his very own case?
That no man shall be a judge for his reason is one of the most sacrosanct ideas of natural justice that the court docket mechanically preaches and enforces within the loads of cases it adjudicates each day. The Chief Justice as master of the roster has the only authority to constitute the Bench. So did he not think it suited to exclude himself from its composition?
2. Why have there been no lady’s justices in this Special Bench?
Justice Indu Malhotra is the chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee of the Supreme Court and turned into no longer protected in this special bench. None of the alternative female justices of the Supreme Court had been included in both. Given that the POSH Act is crystal clear that the committee inquiring into sexual harassment should be headed by a lady and needs to contain most ladies, why is this precept no longer observed when constituting a unique bench to reply to the criticism?
3. What changed the motive of this hearing?
If the special bench turned into now not assembling to deal with the grievance (and consequently now not following the “In House Procedure”/POSH Act/ Sexual Harassment Regulations), then what became the reason for convening a unique bench of the court docket? Given that the inquiry is supposed to take vicinity in the back of closed doorways even following a prescribed method, may those allegations ever be adjudicated in an open court docket?
4. Can this matter be taken up on the judicial aspect?
There is a special “in-residence manner” governing inquiry into allegations against sitting Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court. While the said in-residence method does not envisage a mechanism to be followed within the occasion a grievance is acquired against the Chief Justice of India themselves, it’s far pertinent to focus on the system laid out otherwise. Upon receiving criticism towards a decision of the Supreme Court, the CJI shall observe it first. If it is extremely related to misconduct or impropriety, they shall ask for a reaction from the worried choice. Upon receiving his reaction, if the CJI thinks that the problem requires a deeper probe, he could constitute a committee that includes three Supreme Court judges, which shall then behavior an inquiry into the stated Complaint. As such, because the “in-house manner” prescribes no mechanism for complaints in opposition to the CJI, it’s far clear that a person aggrieved by the acts of the CJI, as well as the inquiry to comply, will be guided using the process as laid down for other judges inside the “in-residence technique,” which mandates the constitution of a committee. The Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations, 2013 also has a particular process to be observed in the event of a complaint. It no longer envisages any open court hearing at the judicial aspect as a technique for responding to criticism.
The hearing
At this hearing, as mentioned on Twitter by using criminal information websites, the respondent claimed that the complaint was part of a plot to attack the independence of the judiciary. The complainant was said to have criminal antecedents, and the allegations had been stated to be now not worthy of any response. Several extreme questions stand up:
1. Why was the respondent, while he becomes sitting in his reliable capacity as the Chief Justice of India as a presiding officer of a special bench, responding to private allegations against him?
2. Why did the respondent make non-public statements about his bank stability and recognition throughout a court docket Listening, in which he was talking because of the Chief Justice of India (and no longer a press convention, wherein he ought to have spoken in his non-public ability)? Furthermore, what was the relevance of these statements, apart from prejudicing the case of the complainant through attractive to beside-the-point facts to create sympathy?
3. What honest system lets the case of the complainant be prejudiced even before the beginning of an inquiry by way of allowing the respondent himself, in his respectable potential and from his role of strength, to declare mala files in opposition to the grievance to the public at huge?
