SC in-house probe panel finds ‘no substance’ in allegations against CJI

Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, May 6

The Supreme Court’s in-house inquiry – which probed into allegations of sexual harassment levelled by a dismissed woman employee against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi – has given clean chit to him, saying there was no substance in the allegations.

“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,” Supreme Court Secretary General  Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar said in a release uploaded on the top court’s website.

Citing the top court’s verdict in Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India and Another (2003), the Secretary General said the panel’s report will not be made public. The top court had in that case held that the report of a committee constituted as a part of the In-House Procedure was not liable to be made public.

The In-House Committee submitted its report dated May 5 in accordance with the In-House Procedure, to the next senior judge competent to receive the report, the release said, adding, a copy had also been sent to the judge concerned, namely, the CJI.

The committee – which also included Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Indira Banerjee—went ahead with the unprecedented inquiry and submitted its report despite the complainant withdrawing from the proceedings.

After the In-House Committee submitted its report, another panel headed by Justice (retd) AK Patnaik is expected to commence its probe into allegations of a conspiracy to implicate CJI Gogoi in a false sexual harassment case.

The dismissed employee – whose allegations created a storm in legal circles on April 20 when four online portals published details of her affidavit sent to 22 judges of the Supreme Court – had opted herself out of the inquiry, expressing “serious concerns and reservations” about its functioning over not being allowed to be accompanied by lawyer and lack of video recording of proceedings. She had appeared before the panel for three days.

“I felt I was not likely to get justice from this committee and so I am no longer participating in the 3-Judge Committee proceedings,” she had said in her statement.

The panel started its proceedings late last month and had held several closed-door sittings in which the complainant had appeared to record her testimony. The CJI himself had on Wednesday last appeared before it.

Ever since it was constituted, the panel has been hitting headlines. On Sunday, the Supreme Court had denied reports that Justice RF Nariman and Justice DY Chandrachud met Justice SA Bobde and suggested that the panel should not go ahead with the proceeding ex-parte after the complainant withdrew from the proceedings.

Later, it was reported that Justice Chandrachud had written to the panel and requested it not to proceed with the inquiry ex-parte after the complainant withdrew as it would undermine the court’s credibility. He had reportedly suggested that at least one retired woman judge of the Supreme Court should be there on the panel and that she should be allowed to take assistance of a lawyer.