NEW DELHI: Charges of sexual harassment against two retired Supreme Court judges have generated intense disquiet and unease among the nation's top judges, with some expressing the view that the institution is being "targeted by vested interests in a well-thought-out game plan".
Others, however, said the allegations could not be brushed under the carpet. They said an institutional mechanism needed to be set up to deal with such situations.
More than 10 judges, both sitting and retired, whom ET spoke to, expressed concern over the impact of the charges on the court's reputation. Some saw darker forces at work as in both instances there was a substantial delay before the charges surfaced, indicating motives other than an attempt by the complainants to get justice for themselves.
"The first intern's blog was a little too well-crafted for her age," a sitting judge said. "It was possibly vetted by a lawyer; each word carefully chosen."
"This is a well-conceived plan to target individual judges after retirement," said a recently retired judge, who monitored a CBI probe into a high-profile case of alleged corruption.
The allegations could possibly be an attempt to whip up "public disgust" against the institution to pave the way for the judicial accountability Bill, the judge said.
The complaint against Justice AK Ganguly came into the public domain in late 2013 while the incident allegedly took place in December 2012. Last week, allegations surfaced against the head of the National Green Tribunal, Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Last week, allegations surfaced against the head of the National Green Tribunal, Justice Swatanter Kumar, over an incident that supposedly took place two years ago. Both the judges have strongly denied the charges.
In a legal notice sent on behalf of Justice Kumar to a number of publications and television channels, his lawyers alleged the complaint was motivated by a conspiracy. "The complaint, my client has reason to believe, is part of a deep-rooted conspiracy to adversely impact his handling of an extremely sensitive tribunal and its timing itself is suspect as it comes on the heels of an allegation earlier made by an intern against another judge who has recently resigned."
In an interview with ET in Mumbai, former Supreme Court Judge BN Srikrishna said judges were being "deprived of their constitutional rights".
"The institution is going through very difficult times. Not having a mechanism to deal with these complaints quickly and discreetly is making things worse," said another high-profile judge, who issued a harsh indictment of the government just before he demitted office in 2011.
"The SC could do well to have an in house mechanism to deal with such complaints. But the fear, the danger of harassment (from being at the receiving end of false allegations) is always there," he conceded.
Former attorney-general Soli Sorabjee said the interns should use the legal route. "One can't jump to a conclusion (about a conspiracy). But you can't expect the Supreme Court to be prosecuting agency in these cases. After all, these interns are educated women; they are not illiterate, rural parda-nasheen (veiled) women. Let them file a complaint." Former chief justice VN Khare declined comment.
The fact that a government law officer, Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising, was making these complaints public was another reason for heartburn. "The less said about this (Jaising's role) the better," said one retired judge. She should step down from office if she has to do such things, he suggested.
Jaising, who's spearheaded a campaign to get justice for the interns, refused to comment. Asked if more complaints were expected, she said: "Not that I know of."
Another retired judge said that "changing social mores make it easy for those wishing to target judges". "It is perfectly normal in Punjab, for example, to hug young people you are comfortable with; in Delhi, it is acceptable for girls to drink," he said.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan said the charges did appear to be concerted. But the manner in which the court was dealing with the matter precluded the truth from emerging.
"The manner in which these complaints have been dealt with is extremely unusual and in many respects unjust. The Supreme Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction in finding a prima facie against Justice Ganguly. Now there is another complaint. The Supreme Court should not deal with complaints against retired judges unless it clearly falls within its remit."
No comments:
Post a Comment