Skip to main content

Followed by men on motorbikes, I was scared for safety: Ex-Apex Court woman employee

Counterview Desk
In a controversial move, widely reported, the former Supreme Court woman employee, whose allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has created a flutter, has declared she would not participate in the in-house inquiry instituted into her complaint. According to her, her decision follows after she was "not allowed" to have a lawyer or any person for legal support during the hearing.
In a statement she has issued following her decision, she said, "I was repeatedly asked by the committee as to why I had made this complaint of sexual harassment so late", adding, "I found the atmosphere of the committee very frightening and I was very nervous because of being confronted and questioned by three Supreme Court Judges and without even the presence of my lawyer/support person."
Claiming that the committee does not appreciate the fact that her complaint was against the sitting Chief Justice of India, she said, “I was at times unable to follow what was being dictated as my statement. No copy of my statement, recorded on April 26 and 29, has been given to me."

Text of the statement* where the woman says she will not participate in the hearing:

Today, April 30, 2019, was the third day I went to the in-house committee of three Supreme Court Judges (Hon’ble Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Indu Malhotra). But due to serious concerns and reservations, I am no longer participating in these in-house committee proceedings. I joined and participated in the Committee proceedings in good faith on April 26 and 29, 2019 with the hope that this committee would proceed in a manner that is fair to me and sensitive to my circumstances.
Despite the fact that the committee was an in-house committee of sitting judges junior to the CJI, and not an external committee as I had requested, I joined the proceedings with a lot of hope considering that the committee comprised of such eminent Hon’ble judges. I felt that this committee will hear my sufferings and finally justice will be done to me and my family.
On April 19, 2019 I had made a detailed complaint of sexual harassment and victimisation against the Chief Justice of India by means of an affidavit dated 18th April 2019 and I had written to all the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court to constitute a special enquiry committee of senior retired Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to enquire into my complaint of sexual harassment and the consequent victimisation.
I did not think that any in-house body or the committee constituted under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, would be able to fairly deal with my complaint, given the fact that the person against whom I had made the complaint was the Chief Justice of India. My complaint is in the public domain.
However to my dismay I found that on the next day, Saturday April 20 (which was a court holiday), the Hon’ble Chief Justice constituted a special bench comprising of himself and two other judges and in that hearing held in Court No 1 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court various allegations were made against me in my absence, by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, another judge and senior most law officers of the government.
Thereafter on April 23, 2019 at around 8.30 pm I received a Notice from the Secretary General of the Supreme Court stating that I was required to appear on 26th April at the assigned time and place before a Committee of Hon’ble Judges. Soon after receiving the Notice I learnt from media reports the names of the Judges who would constitute this Committee.
Despite the fact that this was an in-house committee and not an external committee, I decided to participate in the proceedings. I however requested the committee to inform me about the procedure to be followed by the committee, to follow the requirements of the Vishakha guidelines and the Prevention of Sexual Harassment against Women at the Workplace Act, to allow me to have the assistance of a lawyer/support person of my choice and for video recording of the proceedings.
I also pointed out that Hon’ble Justice Ramana being a close friend of the CJI (almost like a family member), it may not be appropriate for him to participate in the proceedings. Thereafter Justice Ramana recused and he was replaced by Justice Indu Malhotra in the committee, which information also I gathered from media reports.
In the Committee hearing that took place on 26th April 2019, the Judges in the committee told me that this was neither an in-house committee proceeding, nor a proceeding under the Vishakha Guidelines and that it was an informal proceeding. I was asked to narrate my account which I did to the best of my ability even though I felt quite intimidated and nervous in the presence of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and without having a lawyer or support person with me.
I had also pointed out to the committee that I had lost hearing in one ear completely due to stress and I was undergoing daily treatment for the same. As a result of this I was sometimes unable to hear what was being dictated by Hon’ble Justice Bobde to the court official as a record of my statements before the committee.
Further the committee declined my request for video recording of the committee proceedings. I was also clearly told that no lawyer/support person could be present with me during the committee hearing. I was orally instructed that I should not disclose the proceedings of the committee to the media and was to not even share the proceedings with my lawyer Advocate Vrinda Grover. I was asked to appear before the Committee on April 29 for the next hearing.
At the first hearing itself I had also placed an application before the Committee to summon the CDR and whatsapp call and chat records of two relevant mobile numbers. However the Committee did not accept my application on the first hearing. The same application was finally taken by the Committee on April 30, 2019, when feeling helpless and distressed I could no longer continue to participate in the Committee hearings.
After I left the first Committee hearing on the first day, I saw that the car I travelling by was being followed by two men on a motorcycle whose partial number I was able to note.
Before the next hearing I wrote a detailed letter to the Hon’ble Committee members, narrating all this and again requesting that the proceedings of the committee be treated as a formal inquiry and the Committee follow the letter and spirit of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, and that I be permitted to be accompanied and assisted by Ms V Grover, that I be allowed to produce evidence both oral and documentary with a right to cross examination and that my applications be taken on record.
In the hearing that followed on April 29, I was again not allowed to have a lawyer/support person present with me. I was repeatedly asked by the committee as to why I had made this complaint of sexual harassment so late. I found the atmosphere of the committee very frightening and I was very nervous because of being confronted and questioned by three Supreme Court Judges and without even the presence of my lawyer/support person.
Also because of my impaired hearing I was at times unable to follow what was being dictated as my statement. I was also not shown what was being recorded and no copy of my statement recorded on April 26 and 29 has been given to me till date.
In such circumstances, I went for the hearing on the 30th April with a written letter where I once again explained why I made my complaint of sexual harassment after several months and where I again pointed out why it was exceedingly traumatic and difficult for me to participate in the proceedings without even the presence of my lawyer/support person. I also stated that I have not been given a copy of my statement recorded on the earlier two dates of hearing.
I again pointed out that when I left the Committee hearing on April 29 at around 7.30 pm I was followed by four men on two motorcycles and I was scared for my safety.
I gave this letter to the committee just as the hearing commenced this morning. I told the committee that it would not be possible for me to participate any further if I was not allowed the presence of my lawyer/support person. But this request was still refused by the committee and I was told that if I didn’t participate they would proceed exparte.
I was told that there were certain questions on facts that they wanted me to answer. I declined to participate any further in the absence of my lawyer/support person. The committee also asked me if I wanted to present any witnesses.
I informed them that almost all the witnesses are working in the Supreme Court of India and there is no likelihood of them being able to depose fearlessly before the committee. I also informed the committee today that due to my present health condition and personal circumstances, this kind of stress can be detrimental and harmful to me.
I was compelled to walk out of the committee proceedings today because the committee seemed not to appreciate the fact that this was not an ordinary complaint but was a complaint of sexual harassment against a sitting CJI and therefore it was require to adopt procedure that would ensure fairness and equality in the highly unequal circumstances that I am placed. I had hoped that the approach of the committee towards me would be sensitive and not one that would cause me further fear, anxiety and trauma.
I have not been informed if the committee has sought any response from the CJI to my complaint and I have been left guessing and anxious on all these matters.
In these circumstances where:
  1. I have not been allowed to have the presence of my lawyer/support person despite my impaired hearing, nervousness and fear
  2. There being no video or audio recording of the Committee proceedings 
  3. I have not been supplied even a copy of my statement as recorded on 26th and 29th April 2019 
  4.  I was not informed about the procedure this committee is following. 
I felt I was not likely to get justice from this committee and so I am no longer participating in the three Judge Committee proceedings.
---
*Slightly abridged

Comments

TRENDING

Astonishingly sycophantic: Ex-Gujarat topcop on 2002 Godhra riots probe panel report

By Rajiv Shah  In a scathing critique of the 2002 communal riots inquiry commission report, released by the Gujarat government in December 2019 five years after it was submitted, the State’s former topcop RB Sreekumar has said that it “unequivocally” and “meticulously” takes care “to refrain from probing and taking cognizance of any deviant action of omission and commission by the State administration, particularly those operating in the criminal justice system, who facilitated extensive mass violence and enabled brigands to perpetrate anti-minority crimes.”

Two of 12 top caste-based sexual violence cases from 'model' Gujarat: NGO report

By Rajiv Shah   The National Council of Women Leaders (NCWL), a civil rights group, has compiled what it has called “landmark cases of caste-based sexual violence” between 1985 and 2020 to mark the first anniversary of the notorious Hathras gangrape case, which led to the death of a young Dalit woman in September 2020.

Riddled with Brahmanical mindset, India's health care 'serving' corporate interests

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat*  In this second part of my conversation (click here for first part), Dr Manisha Bangar speaks about the health crisis in India how the government is trying to privatise things, and where our response during the Corona period was lacking. She also gives us an understanding of people opposing nutritious meals for children in the mid-day meal.

Buddhist shrines were 'massively destroyed' by Brahmanical rulers: Historian DN Jha

Nalanda mahavihara By Our Representative Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book , "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Inaccurate gender-relevant data 'spoiling' government policy on Covid social impact

By Simi Mehta*  The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has been different across vulnerable groups. They were hit by the pandemic at various stages, whether it was accessibility to medical treatment or financial support. The second wave witnessed human suffering at a level where one can never forget the traumatized faces of people due to the inaccessibility and unavailability of essential medical services such as hospitals beds and oxygen. The probability of the third wave has also been one of the major upcoming challenges.

Anti-Dalit atrocities increase 9.4% despite pandemic, Uttar Pradesh tops the list: Report

By Rahul Singh* Data on crime against Dalits and Adivasis in the Crime In India Report, 2020 draws a distinct pattern of similarity between rural and urban spaces. Published by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), they capture some anomalies and interesting trends. The report also shows that a large proportion of crimes against Dalits and Adivasis involves crime against women.

Vindictive raids? Centre 'retaliates' after Delhi govt child rights body's clean chit to ex-babu

By Our Representative  Over 700 academics, advocates, activists, civil servants, writers, film makers, journalists, musicians and artists have condemned the raids by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on the offices and private home of top IAS bureaucrat-turned-human rights and peace activist Harsh Mander, stating, the aim is nothing but to “harass and intimidate” him.

Flamboyant 'demagogues' adjust politics, personality in shadow of democracy

Modi, Erdogan, Bolsonaro By Ajit Singh The terms dictators and demagogues are used interchangeably in various contexts, but there is a difference. The former rule over a totalitarian states where governments are able to exercise complete influence over every aspect of citizens’ life, whereas the latter are a "wannabe dictators" but due to the system of checks and balances they are are not fully capable to create police states.

Power supply lines in Thar 'pushing' Great Indian Bustard to extinction: Researchers

By Rosamma Thomas*  Electricity supply lines pose a huge risk to birds and affect biodiversity, but there is little research about the numbers of birds dying of such collision in the tropical nations. In August 2021, academic journal Biological Conservation carried the results of a survey conducted in 2017-18 on 4,200 sq km of the Thar Desert in Jaisalmer district of Rajasthan. This was the first comprehensive survey of this nature in the region.