DALIT ONLINE – e News Weekly
Spreading the light of humanity & freedom
Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.15..Issue.17.......28 / 04 / 2019
Editorial : Hang Rapist Judges to Lamp Posts - JUDGES & SEXUAL CRIMES
At the outset , we express our whole hearted respects to the honest few public servants
in public service including judiciary & Police. However, the corrupt in public service don’t deserve
respect as individuals – as they are parasites in our legal system. Still we respect the
chairs they occupy but not the corrupt individuals.
All the following articles / issues , past cases of sexual assaults on women by judges (hushed up ?) , whole articles published in the weblinks mentioned
below forms part of this appeal. The term “JUDGE” mentioned throught includes all public
servants discharging judicial functions right from taluk magistrates , quasi-judicial
officers to Chief Justice of India.
Indian Legal / Judicial System is manipulated at various stages & is for sale. It is a SHAME.
The persons who raise their voice seeking justice are silenced in many ways. The
criminal nexus has already attempted to silence me in many ways . If anything untoward
happens to me or to my family members , my dependents , Honourable Chief Justice of
India together with jurisdictional police officer will be responsible for it.
Hereby, we do once again offer our conditional services to the honourable supreme court
of India & other government authorities, in apprehending criminals including corrupt
judges & police. Herewith , we once again appeal to the honourable supreme court of
India , to consider this as a PIL Appeal in public interest.
Consider the cases of sexual assault by JUDGES , POLICE on women . The JUDGES
have legal immunity with respect to their official duties, official actions but not their
individual actions amounting to CRIMES.
The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others
to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by
the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same
mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught , legally punished & reformed . if a police
himself commits crime , many thieves go scot- free under his patronage. even if a police ,
public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by
the aggrieved. just think , if a judge himself that too of apex court of the land itself
commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public and
obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what
happens ? it gives a booster dose to the rich & mighty , those in power , criminals in
public service to committ more crimes. that is exactly what is happenning in india. the
educated public must raise to the occassion & peacefully , democratically must oppose
this criminalisation of judiciary , public service. then alone , we can build a RAM RAJYA OF MAHATMA GANDHI'S DREAM.
Hereby , we request the honourable court to reopen all hushed up old cases of sexual assault involving judges and to punish the guilty judges.
Women Lawyers Question Chief Justice Gogoi's Handling of Sexual Harassment Charge
By wire
If in the face of the complaint, a person can expect to be publicly vilified, deemed to be "wild and scandalous" even before any enquiry, and has to face the entire collective might of the judiciary, how do we ever claim to offer constitutional justice to women who experience sexual harassment?
14'
Credit: PTI/Illustration by The Wire
LAW
Women Lawyers Question Chief Justice Gogoi's Handling of Sexual Harassment Charge
If in the face of the complaint, a person can expect to be publicly vilified, deemed to be "wild and scandalous" even before any enquiry, and has to face the entire collective might of the judiciary, how do we ever claim to offer constitutional justice to women who experience sexual harassment?
On Saturday evening, the Women in Criminal Law Association, a recently established collaborative group for women in criminal litigation, issued a statement on Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi’s handling of a sexual harassment charge levelled against him by a former junior court assistant. The statement raises a number of questions about the convening of a special bench on Saturday morning and the manner in which it conducted its deliberations and passed an order.
14'
Credit: PTI/Illustration by The Wire
LAW
Women Lawyers Question Chief Justice Gogoi's Handling of Sexual Harassment Charge
If in the face of the complaint, a person can expect to be publicly vilified, deemed to be "wild and scandalous" even before any enquiry, and has to face the entire collective might of the judiciary, how do we ever claim to offer constitutional justice to women who experience sexual harassment?
The Wire Staff
LAW
WOMEN
12 HOURS AGO
On Saturday evening, the Women in Criminal Law Association, a recently established collaborative group for women in criminal litigation, issued a statement on Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi’s handling of a sexual harassment charge levelled against him by a former junior court assistant. The statement raises a number of questions about the convening of a special bench on Saturday morning and the manner in which it conducted its deliberations and passed an order.
The statement is published in full below.
§
A complaint of sexual harassment against the sitting Chief Justice of India was sent (along with an affidavit and other supporting evidence) to the other sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India asking for the constitution of an inquiry committee of senior retired judges to investigate and adjudicate these serious allegations.
The legal institutional response to such a complaint as mandated under the “In-House Procedure” applicable to Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, along with the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act) Act, (“POSH Act”) read with the Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations, 2013, is for the designated inquiry committee to take cognizance of the complaint, constitute an inquiry committee and give notice to the respondent as to the initiation of such proceedings.
Today, in an unprecedented move beyond the scope of any known procedure or principle of law – whether under the “in house procedure” or in the POSH Act or the Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations – a notice was issued on the Supreme Court website that a ‘special bench’ was being constituted to hold court at 10:30 am on the mentioning by the solicitor general, even as the court has been on vacation since Wednesday and is scheduled to reopen only on Monday.
The notice states that the purpose of the hearing is “to deal with a matter of great public importance touching upon the independence of the judiciary.”
The notice for the hearing
The bench comprised three judges of the Supreme Court including the respondent himself:
1.Why was the respondent himself sitting in judgment over his own case?
That no man shall be a judge in his own cause is one of the most sacrosanct principles of natural justice that the court routinely preaches and enforces in the hundreds of cases it adjudicates every day. The Chief Justice as master of the roster has the sole authority to constitute the Bench. Did he not think it fit to exclude himself from its composition.
2. Why were no women justices on this Special Bench?
Justice Indu Malhotra is the chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee of the Supreme Court and was not included in this special bench. None of the other women justices of the Supreme Court were included either. Given that the POSH Act is crystal clear that the committee inquiring into sexual harassment must be headed by a woman and must comprise of a majority of women, why was this principle not followed when constituting a special bench to respond to the complaint?
3. What was the purpose of this hearing?
If the special bench was not assembling to deal with the complaint (and hence not following the “In House Procedure”/POSH Act/ Sexual Harassment Regulations) then what was the purpose of convening a special bench of the court? Given that the inquiry is meant to take place behind closed doors while following a prescribed procedure, could these allegations ever be adjudicated in open court?
4. Can this matter be taken up on the judicial side?
There is a special “in-house procedure” governing inquiry into allegations against sitting Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court. While the said in-house procedure does not envisage a mechanism to be adopted in the event a complaint is received against the Chief Justice of India themselves, it is pertinent to highlight the procedure laid out otherwise. Upon receiving a complaint against a judge of the Supreme Court, the CJI shall examine it first, and if it is of a serious nature involving misconduct or impropriety, they shall ask for a response from the concerned judge. Upon receiving his response, if the CJI is of the opinion that the matter needs a deeper probe, he would constitute a committee consisting of three judges of the Supreme Court, which shall then conduct an inquiry into the said Complaint. As such, because the “in house procedure” prescribes no mechanism for complaints against the CJI, it is clear that a person aggrieved by the acts of the CJI, as well as the inquiry that will follow, will be guided by the procedure as laid down for other judges in the “in house procedure”, which mandates the constitution of a committee. The Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations, 2013 also has a specific procedure to be followed in the event of a complaint and do not envisage any open court hearing on the judicial side as a procedure for responding to a complaint.
The hearing
At this hearing, as reported on Twitter by legal news websites, the respondent claimed that the complaint is a part of a plot to attack the independence of the judiciary. The complainant was stated to have criminal antecedents and the allegations were stated to be not worthy of any response. Several serious questions arise:
1. Why was the respondent, while he was sitting in his official capacity as the Chief Justice of India as a presiding officer of a special bench responding to personal allegations against him?
2. Why did the respondent make personal statements about his bank balance and reputation during a court hearing, where he was speaking as the Chief Justice of India (and not a press conference, where he could have spoken in his personal capacity)? Furthermore, what was the relevance of these statements, apart from prejudicing the case of the complainant by appealing to irrelevant facts to create sympathy?
3. What fair process allows the case of the complainant to be prejudiced even before the start of any inquiry by allowing the respondent himself, in his official capacity and from his position of power, to declare mala fides against the complaint to the public at large?
4. What due process allows a public hearing in a court of law without the presence and participation of a representative of the complainant while statements about the merits of her case and her bona fides are pronounced upon?
5. Why did none of the officers of the court (AG/SG) or the officer bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association who were present highlight to the special bench the in-house procedure or the Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations, 2013? While the AG was quick to point at confidentiality obligations upon participants in an inquiry under the POSH Act (which has not even begun at this stage) and therefore decry the public naming of the Chief Justice as the respondent in the complaint, the actual process under the Act to deal with the complaint was not deemed to be important enough to mention.
6. What was the role of the attorney general and solicitor general? As per reports, the matter was ‘mentioned’ by the solicitor general. ‘Mentioning’ is a procedure used for urgent listing of cases, which incidentally the current CJI has repeatedly discouraged and criticised. Clearly, there was no matter to be listed on an urgent basis and certainly no matter concerning the Government of India (since the attorney general and solicitor general are law officers of the Government of India). Additionally, the order passed by the Court shows the case as a ‘Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) under the court’s inherent jurisdiction’. This indicates that the judges instituted this writ petition themselves, which is contrary to the reports that it was mentioned by the solicitor general. Why did the AG and SG, immediately align themselves with the respondent-CJI (as may be gleaned from the records of the proceedings that are available on social media)? This immediate unwavering support for the respondent expressed by the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association without there having been any form of inquiry sends out a clear signal: that there is no space for a woman, especially a woman lawyer, to come out with her experiences of sexual harassment without having the doyens of the legal fraternity immediately turning upon her.
Judicial independence
The serious question of judicial independence was raised both as the alleged purpose for conveying a hearing by a special bench as well as at the hearing itself with no less than the respondent himself stating this the complaint is only a plot to attack the credibility and independence of the judiciary.
However, the idea behind an in-house procedure, adopted by a full court meeting (all the judges) of the Supreme Court on 15.12.1999, was to safeguard the independence of the judiciary since the complaint would be examined by the peers of the respondent judge; and also “preserve the faith of the people in the independence and impartiality of the judicial process” since it would demonstrate that there exists a machinery for the examination of complaints against a judge, and that members of the higher judiciary are also accountable for their conduct.
Therefore, convening a special bench in order to allege an attack on the independence of the judiciary, instead of following due process and adopting the in-house procedure is not only ironic, but also raises important questions about fair procedure:
1. Why are specific allegations against a specific individual justice of the court necessarily conflated with attacks against the institution?
Judicial independence cannot mean that no complaints of misconduct can ever be made against a specific individual justice of the court. In fact, the Supreme Court has itself in the past experienced and adjudicated upon instances and allegations of sexual harassment by sitting/retired judges, without ever branding it as an attack on judicial independence. In the instance of one particular retired judge, the Supreme Court fact-finding committee found that the allegations of sexual harassment, were prima facie made out. The #MeToo movement showed us how powerful men hide behind the safety of their institutions when faced with allegations of sexual harassment. But that the highest court of justice of the country would allow that is a smite on the constitutional promise of dignity, equality and due process of law.
2. Independence from what?
The history of the phrase ‘independence of the judiciary’ evolved as a safeguard against undue interference by the executive. It appears that in the present moment, the executive and judicial wings are completely in tandem with their mutual contempt for complainants and due process to be followed when adjudicating complaints of sexual harassment. The matter of great public importance appears less to be about judicial independence and more about the now established fact that the legal profession operates as a men’s club where any woman who speaks up will be collectively shamed and sullied without any expectation of constitutional justice.
3. Does judicial independence mean an embargo on sexual harassment complaints against judges?
Judicial independence does not and cannot mean ‘independence’ from any inquiry when serious allegations such as those outlined in the present complaint are made against a specific judicial officer. None of the highest ranking judicial and legal officers of this country have explained which institution/person/external influence they foresee this threat from. The manner of handling the complaint against the CJI by the Supreme Court today also raises an important question: having adjudicated upon cases of sexual harassment by Judges and other matters of judicial impropriety in the past without it becoming an issue about the judicial system as a whole, what was the need to adopt an unprecedented method of convening a Special Bench to address a personal allegation against the CJI (without committing to the adherence to due procedure in its adjudication)
The order
At the end of the hearing, the Special Bench passed an order observing as follows:
“Having considered the matter, we refrain from passing any judicial order at this moment leaving it to the wisdom of the media to show restraint, act responsibly as is expected from them and accordingly decide what should or should not be published as wild and scandalous allegations undermine and irreparably damage reputation and negate the independence of the judiciary. We would therefore at this juncture leave it to the media to take off such material which is undesirable.”
This raises further questions:
1. Why did the coram in this judicial order not include all three presiding members?
14'
Credit: PTI/Illustration by The Wire
LAW
Women Lawyers Question Chief Justice Gogoi's Handling of Sexual Harassment Charge
If in the face of the complaint, a person can expect to be publicly vilified, deemed to be "wild and scandalous" even before any enquiry, and has to face the entire collective might of the judiciary, how do we ever claim to offer constitutional justice to women who experience sexual harassment?
The Wire Staff
LAW
WOMEN
12 HOURS AGO
On Saturday evening, the Women in Criminal Law Association, a recently established collaborative group for women in criminal litigation, issued a statement on Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi’s handling of a sexual harassment charge levelled against him by a former junior court assistant. The statement raises a number of questions about the convening of a special bench on Saturday morning and the manner in which it conducted its deliberations and passed an order.
The statement is published in full below.
§
A complaint of sexual harassment against the sitting Chief Justice of India was sent (along with an affidavit and other supporting evidence) to the other sitting judges of the Supreme Court of India asking for the constitution of an inquiry committee of senior retired judges to investigate and adjudicate these serious allegations.
The legal institutional response to such a complaint as mandated under the “In-House Procedure” applicable to Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, along with the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act) Act, (“POSH Act”) read with the Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations, 2013, is for the designated inquiry committee to take cognizance of the complaint, constitute an inquiry committee and give notice to the respondent as to the initiation of such proceedings.
Today, in an unprecedented move beyond the scope of any known procedure or principle of law – whether under the “in house procedure” or in the POSH Act or the Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations – a notice was issued on the Supreme Court website that a ‘special bench’ was being constituted to hold court at 10:30 am on the mentioning by the solicitor general, even as the court has been on vacation since Wednesday and is scheduled to reopen only on Monday.
The notice states that the purpose of the hearing is “to deal with a matter of great public importance touching upon the independence of the judiciary.”
The notice for the hearing
The bench comprised three judges of the Supreme Court including the respondent himself:
1.Why was the respondent himself sitting in judgment over his own case?
That no man shall be a judge in his own cause is one of the most sacrosanct principles of natural justice that the court routinely preaches and enforces in the hundreds of cases it adjudicates every day. The Chief Justice as master of the roster has the sole authority to constitute the Bench. Did he not think it fit to exclude himself from its composition.
2. Why were no women justices on this Special Bench?
Justice Indu Malhotra is the chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee of the Supreme Court and was not included in this special bench. None of the other women justices of the Supreme Court were included either. Given that the POSH Act is crystal clear that the committee inquiring into sexual harassment must be headed by a woman and must comprise of a majority of women, why was this principle not followed when constituting a special bench to respond to the complaint?
3. What was the purpose of this hearing?
If the special bench was not assembling to deal with the complaint (and hence not following the “In House Procedure”/POSH Act/ Sexual Harassment Regulations) then what was the purpose of convening a special bench of the court? Given that the inquiry is meant to take place behind closed doors while following a prescribed procedure, could these allegations ever be adjudicated in open court?
4. Can this matter be taken up on the judicial side?
There is a special “in-house procedure” governing inquiry into allegations against sitting Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court. While the said in-house procedure does not envisage a mechanism to be adopted in the event a complaint is received against the Chief Justice of India themselves, it is pertinent to highlight the procedure laid out otherwise. Upon receiving a complaint against a judge of the Supreme Court, the CJI shall examine it first, and if it is of a serious nature involving misconduct or impropriety, they shall ask for a response from the concerned judge. Upon receiving his response, if the CJI is of the opinion that the matter needs a deeper probe, he would constitute a committee consisting of three judges of the Supreme Court, which shall then conduct an inquiry into the said Complaint. As such, because the “in house procedure” prescribes no mechanism for complaints against the CJI, it is clear that a person aggrieved by the acts of the CJI, as well as the inquiry that will follow, will be guided by the procedure as laid down for other judges in the “in house procedure”, which mandates the constitution of a committee. The Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations, 2013 also has a specific procedure to be followed in the event of a complaint and do not envisage any open court hearing on the judicial side as a procedure for responding to a complaint.
The hearing
At this hearing, as reported on Twitter by legal news websites, the respondent claimed that the complaint is a part of a plot to attack the independence of the judiciary. The complainant was stated to have criminal antecedents and the allegations were stated to be not worthy of any response. Several serious questions arise:
1. Why was the respondent, while he was sitting in his official capacity as the Chief Justice of India as a presiding officer of a special bench responding to personal allegations against him?
2. Why did the respondent make personal statements about his bank balance and reputation during a court hearing, where he was speaking as the Chief Justice of India (and not a press conference, where he could have spoken in his personal capacity)? Furthermore, what was the relevance of these statements, apart from prejudicing the case of the complainant by appealing to irrelevant facts to create sympathy?
3. What fair process allows the case of the complainant to be prejudiced even before the start of any inquiry by allowing the respondent himself, in his official capacity and from his position of power, to declare mala fides against the complaint to the public at large?
4. What due process allows a public hearing in a court of law without the presence and participation of a representative of the complainant while statements about the merits of her case and her bona fides are pronounced upon?
5. Why did none of the officers of the court (AG/SG) or the officer bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association who were present highlight to the special bench the in-house procedure or the Supreme Court Sexual Harassment Regulations, 2013? While the AG was quick to point at confidentiality obligations upon participants in an inquiry under the POSH Act (which has not even begun at this stage) and therefore decry the public naming of the Chief Justice as the respondent in the complaint, the actual process under the Act to deal with the complaint was not deemed to be important enough to mention.
6. What was the role of the attorney general and solicitor general? As per reports, the matter was ‘mentioned’ by the solicitor general. ‘Mentioning’ is a procedure used for urgent listing of cases, which incidentally the current CJI has repeatedly discouraged and criticised. Clearly, there was no matter to be listed on an urgent basis and certainly no matter concerning the Government of India (since the attorney general and solicitor general are law officers of the Government of India). Additionally, the order passed by the Court shows the case as a ‘Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) under the court’s inherent jurisdiction’. This indicates that the judges instituted this writ petition themselves, which is contrary to the reports that it was mentioned by the solicitor general. Why did the AG and SG, immediately align themselves with the respondent-CJI (as may be gleaned from the records of the proceedings that are available on social media)? This immediate unwavering support for the respondent expressed by the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association without there having been any form of inquiry sends out a clear signal: that there is no space for a woman, especially a woman lawyer, to come out with her experiences of sexual harassment without having the doyens of the legal fraternity immediately turning upon her.
Judicial independence
The serious question of judicial independence was raised both as the alleged purpose for conveying a hearing by a special bench as well as at the hearing itself with no less than the respondent himself stating this the complaint is only a plot to attack the credibility and independence of the judiciary.
However, the idea behind an in-house procedure, adopted by a full court meeting (all the judges) of the Supreme Court on 15.12.1999, was to safeguard the independence of the judiciary since the complaint would be examined by the peers of the respondent judge; and also “preserve the faith of the people in the independence and impartiality of the judicial process” since it would demonstrate that there exists a machinery for the examination of complaints against a judge, and that members of the higher judiciary are also accountable for their conduct.
Therefore, convening a special bench in order to allege an attack on the independence of the judiciary, instead of following due process and adopting the in-house procedure is not only ironic, but also raises important questions about fair procedure:
1. Why are specific allegations against a specific individual justice of the court necessarily conflated with attacks against the institution?
Judicial independence cannot mean that no complaints of misconduct can ever be made against a specific individual justice of the court. In fact, the Supreme Court has itself in the past experienced and adjudicated upon instances and allegations of sexual harassment by sitting/retired judges, without ever branding it as an attack on judicial independence. In the instance of one particular retired judge, the Supreme Court fact-finding committee found that the allegations of sexual harassment, were prima facie made out. The #MeToo movement showed us how powerful men hide behind the safety of their institutions when faced with allegations of sexual harassment. But that the highest court of justice of the country would allow that is a smite on the constitutional promise of dignity, equality and due process of law.
2. Independence from what?
The history of the phrase ‘independence of the judiciary’ evolved as a safeguard against undue interference by the executive. It appears that in the present moment, the executive and judicial wings are completely in tandem with their mutual contempt for complainants and due process to be followed when adjudicating complaints of sexual harassment. The matter of great public importance appears less to be about judicial independence and more about the now established fact that the legal profession operates as a men’s club where any woman who speaks up will be collectively shamed and sullied without any expectation of constitutional justice.
3. Does judicial independence mean an embargo on sexual harassment complaints against judges?
Judicial independence does not and cannot mean ‘independence’ from any inquiry when serious allegations such as those outlined in the present complaint are made against a specific judicial officer. None of the highest ranking judicial and legal officers of this country have explained which institution/person/external influence they foresee this threat from. The manner of handling the complaint against the CJI by the Supreme Court today also raises an important question: having adjudicated upon cases of sexual harassment by Judges and other matters of judicial impropriety in the past without it becoming an issue about the judicial system as a whole, what was the need to adopt an unprecedented method of convening a Special Bench to address a personal allegation against the CJI (without committing to the adherence to due procedure in its adjudication)
The order
At the end of the hearing, the Special Bench passed an order observing as follows:
“Having considered the matter, we refrain from passing any judicial order at this moment leaving it to the wisdom of the media to show restraint, act responsibly as is expected from them and accordingly decide what should or should not be published as wild and scandalous allegations undermine and irreparably damage reputation and negate the independence of the judiciary. We would therefore at this juncture leave it to the media to take off such material which is undesirable.”
This raises further questions:
1. Why did the coram in this judicial order not include all three presiding members?
The order passed today shockingly did not contain the name of the CJI in the coram. The reporting on the hearing is silent as to whether the Chief Justice recused himself at the hearing. If he did, why did he make such extensive comments at the hearing? If he intended to recuse himself, why did the master of the roster convene a special bench that included himself? If he recused himself, why has the special bench passed any speaking order or conducted any hearing at all when the regular procedure is to pass an order for the matter to be listed before another bench in the face of the recusal? Why does the order nowhere reflect the fact that the Chief Justice was present on the special bench and made several statements from the bench? It is a matter of practice and propriety that the judicial record should contain an accurate record of the proceedings before the court.
2. Why are these “wild and scandalous allegations”?
A bare reading of the complaint and the news reporting on it shows that the Complainant has given a detailed account of each incident that took place, and has produced evidence in support of her claims. While Judges of the Supreme Court may consider allegations of sexual harassment against them ‘wild’ or scandalous’, as young women from the profession, these allegations seem all too relatable. There have been several instances of former interns of Supreme Court judges (and lawyers) raising allegations of predatory behaviour by them, and a reading of those accounts along with personal experiences shows that the signs of predatory behaviour are disturbingly similar.
3. Can the judiciary communicate to the media via a judicial hearing?
The respondent himself was a part of the four judges who held a historic press conference that addressed the public on issues of grave importance in relation to judicial independence. The allegations are not against the office of the Chief Justice. They are against the individual as a judicial officer. It was completely wrong for the individual to respond to these allegations and effectively communicate to the media from the Bench.
4. Chilling Effect: Under what power/authority are judges in a ‘non-judicial order’ directing for restraint in media reporting?
It is also relevant to be noted that such a ‘communication’ from the Apex court in the country has a chilling effect on the media and this will in all practicality act as a restraint on the media from reporting news related to the issue.
This leaves us with a final question:
What justice for aggrieved persons?
If in the face of the complaint, a person can expect to be publicly vilified, deemed to be “wild and scandalous” even before any enquiry, and has to face the entire collective might of the judiciary as an institution, the officers of the Government of India and the Bar Council of India, how do we ever claim to offer constitutional justice to women who experience sexual harassment?
Panel names former India Supreme Court judge Ganguly in sex harassment allegation
Shocked, shattered by allegations: former Supreme Court judge Ganguly
New Delhi: A three-member panel that probed the charge of sexual harassment of a young lawyer by a Supreme Court judge has submitted its report, identifying the judge as A K Ganguly, court sources said on Friday.
The report was submitted on Thursday after the committee of three judges met six times. This is the first time an alleged perpetrator has been named.
The report, submitted to Chief Justice P Sathasivam, also carries the statements of the victim, who interned in the Supreme Court, and that of the now-retired Justice Ganguly, the sources said.
The graduate of Kolkata-based National University of Judicial Sciences (NUJS) had alleged sexual harassment by Ganguly while interning for him in December 2012.
The committee, which held six sittings on November 13, 19, 21, 26, and 27, submitted its report to Chief Justice Sathasivam on November 28.
The victim appeared before the committee on November 19 and was expected to appear again on November 21 but chose to stay away.
She first mentioned the incident in a blog for Journal of Indian Law and Society on November 6 and later told the same in an interview with Legally India website.
The victim, who is working with Natural Justice: Lawyers for Communities and Environment, said she heard that there were three other girls besides her who were sexually harassed by the same judge.
She also claimed to have knowledge of four more girls who were allegedly harassed by other judges in their chambers.
Denying any sexual harassment, Ganguly on Friday said he was “shocked and shattered” by the charges against him.
“I am denying everything. I have told the committee that all the allegations levelled by the intern are wrong. I don’t know how such allegations have been levelled against me,” he said.
“I am a victim of situations,” he told television channels.
“I am not ashamed of anything,” he said in reply to a question regarding the alleged episode which came out in public after the victim spoke about it in the legal portal earlier this month.
He said the charges against him were totally wrong. The girl had not raised any sexual harassment issue with him, he said, adding that he had not done any physical harm to her.
The former judge said the intern worked with him though she was not officially allocated to him. She came in the place of another intern who had gone abroad after marriage. “I never put up a poster. She came on her own.”
He said the girl had come to his house on a number of occasions in connection with work.
sexual harassment: Intern moves SC for inquiry against Justice Swatanter Kumar
New Delhi: A former law intern, who has made sexual harassment allegations against Justice Swatanter Kumar, today moved the Supreme Court seeking inquiry against the retired judge.
A bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam, before whom the matter was mentioned for urgent hearing, agreed to take up the case on January 15.
The intern, in the petition, challenged the apex court's December 5, 2013 full court resolution in which it was decided that no complaint against its retired judges will be entertained.
The petitioner also submitted that a proper forum be constituted to conduct inquiry in such cases and her complaint be also looked into by the apex court like it was done in the case of sexual harassment allegations against Justice (retd) A K Ganguly.
The intern has made Justice Kumar, Secretary General of the Supreme Court and Union of India parties in the case.
She submitted that Justice Kumar was a sitting judge at the time of the alleged incident and the apex court must look into the complaint as per Vishaka guidelines.
Justice Kumar, who is currently heading the National Green Tribunal, has described the allegations as "incredulous and false" and "some kind of conspiracy".
IB confirms Mysore Roost Resort sex scandal
The Intelligence Bureau has provided the Centre with a detailed account of the escapade
involving three Karnataka High Court judges on November 3 in a resort on the outskirts of
Mysore, highly placed sources told The Times of India on Friday.
According to a senior official, “Most of the information sought has not only confirmed the veracity
of the incident but the government has crosschecked it with another police agency. Both the
reports match.”
The incident was widely reported in the media. What has surprised the Centre is the “dogged
refusal” of the Karnataka police to confirm the incident. “Mysore Police Commissioner C.
Chandrasekhar first denied that the incident ever took place. Only when a public notice was
issued through the high court registrar seeking information on the Mysore scandal, did the facts
come out in the open. Public protest helped a lot,” says the source.
What transpired at the resort, says the source, “cannot be expected from anyone in civil society,
leave alone persons sworn to upholding the law”. According to him, “The IB report consists of
unmentionable facts and also makes it amply clear that the Mysore incident is not the first time
such things have happened. Can anyone expect upholders of the law to pick a fight with people
who complained to the police when caught in a compromising position?”
In a related development, Karnataka High Court Chief Justice N.K. Jain has written to Chief
Justice of India Justice G.B. Pattanaik asking that three judges be transferred. Jain has proposed
that Justice N.S. Veerabhadraiah be transferred to the Patna High Court, Justice
Chandrasekharaiah to Jammu & Kashmir and Justice V. Gopala Gowda to the Gauhati High
Court.
While Jain is understood not to have given any reasons, highly placed sources say the proposal
for transfers is linked to the Mysore incident.
However, the source says that now the government is worried about the appropriate “remedial
measures”. In such cases, transferring a judge to a remote high court doesn’t always work. He
says, “Bar associations and the people of northeastern states were up in arms when some
judges of the Punjab and Haryana high courts were transferred there. We expect similar protests
if the CJI accepts Justice Jain’s proposal to transfer the three judges of the Karnataka High
Court.”
The Bar Council of India on Friday, while expressing its anguish at the Karnataka incident, called
for “follow-up action”.
“Unless prompt and appropriate action is taken, it will erode the faith of public in the only
institution considered to be the bastion of our fighting faith in democracy,” it said in a statement.
The BCI has “lamented” inaction in this case by “the higher judiciary and the government”.
Read more: IB confirms Mysore sex scandal – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/IB-confirms-Mysore-sexscandal/articleshow/29801662.cms#ixzz1B7PtvFdU ,
Nothing but the truth
By Indira Jaising
A midst the rising din of the demand for death penalty for rapists comes the news that three judges of the Karnataka High Court have been involved in what has come to be described as a 'sex scandal' on the outskirts of Mysore at a place called Roost Resorts.
Our attention is now directed to those who dispense justice rather than those who knock at the doors of justice. In both cases, we are talking about the use and abuse of women — those who are victims of sexual abuse, and those who are used as sexual objects, willingly or unwillingly.
After the reports in local newspapers that three high court judges were found with women at a resort, there was the usual crop of denials. Although the Mysore police were called in to settle a brawl, on being told that the persons in question were judges they said that they heard no evil and saw no evil.
And everyone thought the matter ended there.
Attempts to get the names of the judges or of the women in question drew a blank. The bar association also drew a blank as most people said, "Don't quote me… but…"
On November 30, the Bangalore edition of The Times of India published a front-page story giving the names and photographs of the three judges and confirming that the Intelligence Bureau had done an investigation and come to the conclusion that the incident had indeed occurred. There were still no details of the incident, though it was stated that the report has been given to the chief justice of India.
There were reports on the same day that the Karnataka High Court chief justice had sought the transfer of the three judges to Patna, Jammu and Kashmir and Guwahati. Apparently, the chief justice has agreed to this request and the transfer orders have been issued.
Then came the news that the chief justice of India has set up a committee of inquiry under the 'in-house' procedure consisting of the chief justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the chief justice of the Madras High Court and the chief justice of the Patna High Court.
There were still no details in the press about the actual incident and the entire episode continued to be referred to as a 'sex scandal'.
What is interesting about these reports is not what they reveal, but what they conceal. It is a conspiracy of silence. If the information is now available to the chief justice of India, why is it not being made public? Do we, the public, not have the right to information? Ironically, the morning newspapers brought the news that the Freedom of Information Act has been passed. What are the legitimate limits of the right to freedom of information and the requirement of keeping information a secret? This episode would make an interesting case study.
What exactly is at stake here? There is much that should concern the nation about the incident. This is not a case about the private morality of the judges, be that as it may, but about the abuse of office that they hold. What has not been made known is that the three women in question are women lawyers practising in their courts.
What is at stake here is the pollution of the stream of justice at its very source. There must be countless cases in which these women appeared before these very judges day in and day out of their routine practice. Can one honestly say that in such a situation justice is being done "without fear or favour"? Judges swear on oath of allegiance to "bear true faith" to the Constitution and do justice "without fear or favour". How well have these judges honoured this oath?
What is at stake here is the cynical use of women as sexual commodities. The usual justifications have already begun making the rounds. If the women have not complained, what objection can anyone else have, it is asked. What is lost sight of is the fact that the judges are in a position of dominance vis-à-vis the women, in a position to do favours that pertain to their office.
What is at stake here is the cynical use of public office, the seat of justice, for personal petty gain. It is irrelevant whether the women consented or not. The usual blame game will now begin — blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator; the usual loose talk about the character of the woman in question; the usual attempt to cover up by diverting attention from the actual incident to the motives of those who brought the incident to light.
What is at stake here is the perception of women as sexual commodities by those who are responsible for sitting in judgment over cases brought for and on behalf of women.
The issues at stake here concern one half of Indians. With what faith can Indian women approach the courts demanding the right to equality, the right to be free from sexual harassment or rape and the right to live with dignity, if the persecution of judges who sit in judgment over them is non-negotiable?
In the circumstances, the suggested solution is worse than the offence — to transfer them to Patna, Guwahati and Jammu and Kashmir. Why these particular cities? Are they not an integral part of the country, or are they mere islands within the country that are considered 'punishment postings' where people are sent a la 'crossing Kala Pani' of the old days? To the credit of the Guwahati Bar Association, it protested against the proposed transfer.
The only decent thing to do is for the chief justice of India to disclose full details of the incident so that rumour-mongering comes to an end. This would be in the best interest of the judiciary itself.
As things stand, the rumours are making the rounds that there were more than three judges involved, that the women were professional call girls, many of which are baseless. We, the people, have the right to know. The conspiracy of silence must be broken.
The judges in question must neither be assigned any judicial functions pending an inquiry nor be transferred to sit in judgment over others. Two of the judges are stated to be additional judges. They must not be confirmed. If there is prima facie evidence against the one remaining judge, the chief justice must recommend his impeachment.
It is time for all concerned bar associations, bar councils and other male-dominated bodies of legal professionals to act and ensure that there is no cover-up. There is little point in showing sympathy to women in judgments and in seminar rooms, or in recommending the death penalty for rape if we cannot deal with the men who dispense justice.
There are contempt of court petitions pending in the Karnataka High Court against some of the publications for disclosing details of the incident. Civil society and women's organisations must demand that justice is now done when it comes to the judges themselves.
The law of contempt can offer no solution to the crisis of credibility in the judiciary that this incident has thrown up. One positive aspect of the incident is that it is only after the chief justice of the high court issued a public notice inviting information that he received 20 representations, which led to the discovery of the truth.
Let the truth now be made public.
Judge accused of molesting 2 rape survivors in UP
A sitting judicial magistrate sexually assaulted them
UP: Two rape victims claim that a sitting judicial magistrate sexually assaulted them. The girls
alleged that when they went to the magistrate’s chamber to give their statement, he allegedly
made them strip and molested them.
One of the girls is a minor and the police have filed a complaint. The girls also claimed that the
judge threatened them to not speak of the incident to anyone.
Lawyers and the general public in Gonda launched a protest against the judge.
JUDGE SENDING OBSCENE SMS TO WOMEN
Lucknow Taking cognisance of the allegation against a civil Judge (junior division) of
Budaun court that he sent obscene SMSes to a woman lecturer, the Registrar General of
Allahabad High Court today sought a report from the district judge into the matter.
The civil judge of Gunnor sub-division court of Budaun — Pramod Kumar Gangwar— was
accused of sending obscene SMSes from his cellphone to a woman lecturer of Classic
College of Law, Bareilly. A lecturer of the same college, Vivek Gupta, was named in the FIR
lodged by the victim while Gangwar’s name surfaced in the primary investigation.
Registrar General Dinesh Gupta said, “The district judge of Budaun has been asked to
send a detailed report into the allegations. Appropriate action would be taken on the basis
of the report.”
District Judge Suresh Kumar Srivastava said, “I have asked the Bareilly district police to
send a report about the matter. The report on the basis of the police inquiry would be sent
to the Allahabad High Court Registrar General.”
“I am not aware about the matter, as the Bareilly police did not intimate me before initiating
the probe against the civil judge. They should have informed me when they had received
any such complaint,” the judge added.
Meanwhile, Bareilly CO II Raj Kumar, who is investigating the case, today recorded the
statement of the victim. “I have collected the call details of the cellphone used for sending
the SMSes, but I have yet to get the address of the person who is subscriber of the SIM
card,” he said.
“The probe is on to verify if the accused in the case were present on the location recorded
in the call details when the SMSes were sent. The details of the findings of the
investigation would be sent to the Budaun district court to seek the direction,” the CO
added.
Asked if the investigation was earlier conducted into the matter, Raj Kumar said, “The SP
(Crime) had initiated probe into the matter, but I am not aware if the investigation had
reached to any conclusion.”
The woman lecturer had lodged an FIR at the Mahila police station on Thursday alleging
she had received obscene SMSes on her cellphone involving her colleague Vivek Gupta.
The preliminary inquiry into the case by the police yesterday had found that the mobile
phone used in the crime belongs to the civil judge.
Lokayukta: DC demanded sex from widow
In the midst of a national outrage over former Haryana DGP SPS Rathore molesting a teenager,
the Karnataka Lokayukta on Saturday made a startling revelation that the state government was
shielding a top bureaucrat who had demanded sexual favours from a young widow.
Lokayukta Justice Santosh Hegde disclosed that the official concerned, who was the deputy
commissioner of one of the districts when he demanded sex from the widow in return for
discharging his duties as public servant, has since been promoted to a senior position.
Justice Hegde, in the course of an interaction with journalists at the Deccan Herald office
Saturday afternoon, said the unnamed widow had dared the deputy commissioner and
approached the Lokayukta’s office with a complaint against the officer.
On examination of the complaint, the Lokayukta had found sufficient grounds to recommend to
the state government the suspension and prosecution of the DC concerned. The
recommendation was subsequently considered by the concerned department head as well as
the chief secretary and both endorsed it.
But, according to Justice Hegde, no action was initiated against the DC as the same official who
had endorsed the recommendation subsequently found no basis for initiating departmental action
against him. Instead, the official cleared the DC’s name for promotion in the super-scale.
Presently, the official holds a senior position in the government.
The widow, in her late 20s, had approached the DC with a representation to sort out some
problems. But she was shocked when the DC demanded sex.
Justice Hegde did not identify the official in question or the complainant. Nor did he offer to name
the district where the official was serving as deputy commissioner. But the incident has
happened sometime in the course of last three years as Justice Hegde took over as the
Lokayukta in mid-2006.
3-year jail term for ‘dirty’ judge
Family court judge Ramrao Gangaram Bhise attempted to get sexual favours from a housewife in
1997
Family court judge Ramrao Gangaram Bhise’s attempts to extract sexual favours, in addition to a
bribe, from a housewife, Alka Gaikwad — who had sought an increase in her monthly
maintenance allowance from her estranged husband, in 1997 — proved costly to him.
Pronouncing him guilty on both counts, the special court hearing anti-corruption bureau (ACB)
matters sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment and a collective fine of Rs55, 000,
on Monday.
According to the FIR in the case registered against Bhise by the ACB, Suryakant Gaikwad had
filed for divorce from his wife, Alka, before the Bandra family court. Alka, a housewife, in turn,
filed a petition seeking mutual cohabitation with her husband. The then family court judge, Meera
Khadakkar, directed the husband to pay her an interim maintenance allowance of Rs750 per
month.
Subsequently, in January 1997, Alka filed another application before the same family court (now
presided over by Bhise) seeking to increase the monthly maintenance amount to Rs3,500. “On
October 27, 1997, Bhise issued an interim order, increasing the maintenance allowance to
Rs2,000 to be paid by Suryakan to his estranged wife till the disposal of the case. Immediately
after issuing the order, Bhise asked Alka to meet him and gave her his residential telephone
number, asking her to call him when the court hours ended. He told her that he would ask her
husband to pay her a lump sum of Rs2 lakh in addition to the monthly maintenance, provided she
called him up,” the FIR states.
When she called up the judge at 7 pm the same day, Bhise told her that she would have to pay
him a sum of Rs2,000 in addition to granting his sexual favours if she wanted an order in her
favour. He also directed her to meet him at the Haji Ali bus stop with the bribe amount the
following evening.
“Alka approached the ACB, which sought permission from the Chief Justice of the Bombay High
Court before laying a trap on the first class judicial magistrate (Bhise). The HC while granting the
permission designated a court official to bear witness to the events leading to the trap. Alka,
under video camera surveillance of ACB sleuths, along with the court official and other women
witnesses met Bhise at 8.30 pm at the Haji Ali bus stop. Bhise took hold of Alka’s wrist and when
she protested, repeated his demands,” the FIR states.
Alka was then taken to a nearby hotel, Sharda, where the judge accepted the bribe amount. But
before he could do anything else, ACB sleuths swooped in and arrested him.
Rajasthan judge is indicted for seeking sexual favours
Chief Justice of India G B Pattanaik retires tonight and he doesn’t have much to write home about
on the unprecedented drive he launched to enforce judicial accountability.
After the PPSC scam fiasco, reported in The Indian Express today, comes the case of the
Rajasthan judge who has been indicted in a sex scandal and yet has escaped action—pending
another inquiry.
On December 14, a three-judge committee set up by Pattanaik confirmed the ‘‘involvement’’ of
Justice Arun Madan of the Rajasthan High Court in a proposition to a woman doctor to have sex
with him in exchange for a judicial favour.
The committee, headed by the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice B K
Roy, submitted its report to Pattanaik, indicting Madan on a complaint made from Jodhpur by the
woman concerned, Sunita Malviya.
But Pattanaik has not announced any action against Madan. When contacted by The Indian
Express, Pattanaik confirmed that the committee had indicted Madan and his ‘‘bad reputation’’ in
seeking sexual favours in return for judicial ones.
However, Pattanaik said that no action was being taken since the committee had also mentioned
allegations of corruption against Madan. And so he had ordered a further inquiry by the same
committee into the corruption charges.
When asked what he did with the indictment of Madan in the sex scandal, Pattanaik said, ‘‘That
is on hold because I could not have taken piecemeal action against him….I am praying to God
that the final report will give some tangible material to take action.’’
Highly placed sources told The Indian Express that when the committee recorded statements last
week in Jodhpur of about 30 persons over four days, it also came to know of several allegations
of corruption against Madan and another judge of the same high court. The committee put these
on record as well.
Pattanaik said that when he summoned Madan to New Delhi last week, he did not raise the sex
scandal issue and instead limited himself to saying that he was ordering a further inquiry into
corruption allegations.
In effect, Pattanaik has now passed the Rajasthan buck to his successor Justice V N Khare.
The gist of Malviya’s complaint is that Madan made a sexual proposition to her in October
through a deputy registrar of the high court, Govind Kalwani, who said that the judge would help
her, in turn, get out of a criminal case booked against her.
With this, Pattanaik’s much-touted in-house judicial accountability seems to have hit a wall. The
first committee’s report into the PPSC scam exonerated one judge despite evidence and let two
others off with a mere slap on the wrist. The third committee is now busy probing the involvement
of judges in the Mysore sex scam.
Ten reasons why criminals in khaki get away
Siddharth Varadarajan
Behind every man like S.P.S. Rathore who abuses his authority stand the generals and
footsoldiers who help and support him. We need to take them all down.
S.P.S. Rathore, the criminal former top cop of Haryana, may appear alone today but we must
never forget that he was able to get away with the sexual molestation of a young child and the
illegal harassment of her family for 19 years because he had hundreds of men who supported
him in his effort to evade justice.
The fact that these men – fellow police officers, bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers, judges, school
administrators – were willing to bend the system to accommodate a man accused of molesting a
minor speaks volumes for the moral impoverishment of our establishment and country. Decent
societies shun those involved in sexual offences against children. Even criminals jailed for
`ordinary' crimes like murder treat those serving time for molesting children as beyond the pale.
But in India, men like Rathore have their uses for their masters, so the system circles its wagons
and protects them.
The CBI's appeal may lead to the enhancement of Rathore's sentence and perhaps even the
slapping of abetment to suicide charges, since his young victim killed herself to put an end to the
criminal intimidation her family was being subjected to by Rathore and his men. But the systemic
rot which the case has exposed will not be remedied unless sustained public pressure is put on
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, two men who have
it in their power to push for simple remedies in the way the Indian law enforcement and justice
delivery system works.
First, abolish the need for official, i.e. political sanction to prosecute bureaucrats, policemen and
security forces personnel when they are accused of committing crimes. The original intent behind
this built-in stay-out-of-jail card was to protect state functionaries from acts done in the course of
discharging their duties in good faith. Somewhere along the line, this has come to mean
protecting our custodians of law and order when they murder innocent civilians (eg. the infamous
Panchalthan case in Kashmir where the trial of army men indicted by the CBI for murdering five
villagers in 2000 still cannot take place because the Central government will not grant
permission), or assault or molest women and children. No civilised, democratic society grants
such impunity. It is disgusting to see former officials and bureaucrats from Haryana saying how
they had wanted Rathore prosecuted but were prevented from doing so because of pressure.
Such officials should either be made formally to testify in a criminal case against the politicians
who so pressured them or they should themselves be hauled up for perverting the course of
justice.
Second, stop talking about how making the police and army answerable to the law will somehow
demoralise their morale. Does anybody care about the morale of ordinary citizens any more? Or
the morale of upright police and army officers, who do not think it is right for their colleagues to be
able to get away with criminal acts?
Third, bring an end to the cosy relationship between the police and politicians. Rathore was
protected by four chief ministers of Haryana. He served them and they served him by ensuring
his unfettered rise. It is absurd that the Indian Police is still governed by a colonial-era Act dating
back to 1861. A number of commissions have made recommendations for reforming the police
over the years; but no government or political party wants to give up its ability to use and misuse
the police for their own benefit
Fourth, ensure that police officers who abuse their authority and engage in mala fide
prosecutions are dismissed from service and sentenced to jail for a long period of time. Mr.
Chidambaram should use the considerable resources at his command to find out who were the
policemen involved in filing 11 bogus cases against the teenaged brother of the young girl
Rathore molested. He should then make sure criminal proceedings are initiated against all of
them. The message must go out to every policeman in the country: If you abuse the law at the
behest of a superior, you will suffer legal consequences.
Fifth, ensure that criminal charges against law enforcement personnel are fast-tracked as a
matter of routine so that a powerful defendant is not able to use his position to delay proceedings
the way Rathore did for years on end. The destruction or disappearance of material evidence in
such cases must be treated as a grave offence with strict criminal liability imposed on the
individual responsible for breaking the chain of custody.
Sixth, empower the National Human Rights Commission with teeth so that police departments
and state governments cannot brush aside their orders as happened in the Rathore case. This
would also require appointing to the NHRC women and men who have a proven record of
defending human rights in their professional life, something that is done today only in the breach.
The attitude of the Manmohan Singh government to this commission and others like the National
Commission for Women (NCW) and National Commission for Minorities is shocking. Vacancies
are not filled for months on end.
Seventh, ensure the early enactment of pending legislation broadening the ambit of sexual
crimes, including sexual crimes against children. Between rape, defined as forced penetrative
sex, and the vague, Victorian-era crime of `outraging the modesty of a woman', the Indian Penal
Code recognises no other form of sexual violence. As a result, all forms of sexual molestation
and assault short of rape attract fairly lenient punishment, of the kind Rathore got. In his case, the
judge did not even hand down the maximum sentence, citing concerns for the criminal's age.
Sadly, he did not take into account the age of the victim and neither does the IPC, which fails to
distinguish between `outraging the modesty' of an adult woman and a young child.
A draft law changing these provisions and bringing India into line with the rest of the modern
world has been pending with the NCW and Law Ministry for years. Perhaps the government may
now be shamed into pushing it through Parliament at the earliest.
Eighth, take steps to introduce a system of protection of witnesses and complainants. The fate
that the family of Rathore's young victim had to endure is testament to the fact that people who
seek justice in India do so at their own peril.
Ninth, ensure that robust interrogation techniques like narco-analysis, which are routinely used
against other alleged criminals, are also employed against police officers accused of crimes.
Tenth, the media and the higher judiciary must also turn the light inward and ask themselves
whether they were also derelict in their duty. The Rathore case did not attract the kind of constant
media attention it deserved, nor do other cases involving serving police officers accused of
crimes against women, workers, peasants and minorities. As for the upper courts, their record is
too patchy to inspire confidence. It was, after all, the high court which chose to disregard the
CBI's request for including abetment to suicide charges.
Keywords: Siddharth Varadarajan, S.P.S. Rathore, criminals, khaki, former DGP of
Haryana, custodians, sexual violence, NHRC
Porbandar judge accused of dowry harassment
A complaint has been filed against District and Sessions judge of Porbandar for allegedly
harassing his daughter-in-law for dowry, police said here on Sunday.
Darshana Dave, a native of Amreli, has filed a complaint against her husband Kinnar, father-inlaw
and district judge Arvind Dave, mother-in-law Pratibha and brother-in-law Prashant, the
police added.
Darshana married Kinnar two years ago. Her complaint says that she was harassed from the
beginning, and was even beaten up by the husband and in-laws, who were demanding Rs 10
lakh as dowry.
She has also alleged that she was thrown out of the house a few months back, and her husband
is now seeking divorce, the police said.
Amreli Superintendent of Police H R Muliyana confirmed to have received the complaint against
the judge and others. He said that action will be taken after verifying the complaint.
This is the second complaint related to dowry harassment filed against a judge in the state in the
recent past.
Earlier, a woman had filed a complaint against additional sessions judge of Jetpur after her
daughter and the judge's wife committed suicide.
Gurgaon judge to also face dowry harassment charge
Gurgaon's Chief Judicial Magistrate Ravneet Garg, booked for the murder of his wife, will also
face dowry harassment charge, police here said Monday.
Police have issued notices to the CJM's father K.K. Garg and mother Rachna Garg, who have
also been named in the dowry harassment case.
The CJM's father reached here Monday morning from Haryana's Panchkula town and contacted
police, who wanted to question him.
"We had called CJM's parents...K.K. Garg was questioned by special investigation team (SIT),"
Gurgaon Police Commissioner Alok Mittal said.
Mittal said on the basis of written complaint filed by the parents of the CJM's wife Geetanjali,
penal sections of dowry harassment and extra-marital affair were included in the FIR lodged
against the CJM Saturday.
Geetanjali, 24, bore three bullet wounds - on her chin, chest and stomach - but no bullets were
found in her body that was recovered here Thursday. The CJM's licensed firearm was found near
the body, police said.
Mittal said two bullets were seized from the scene of crime and would be sent for ballistic
examination Monday, a day after ballistic experts examined the crime spot.
"The SIT Sunday questioned two women relatives of Ravneet Garg for hours at his government
allotted house here in the Officers Colony," said Mittal.
"We have asked CJM to produce supporting evidences to prove his statement," he said.
The CJM allegedly said that his driver and domestic help may throw some light on his wife's
death.
Judge Garg's in-laws alleged that two cars were provided to the accused on his and his family's
demand. Rs.2 lakh were also delivered to him at the time of the admission of his daughters in
school in May.
Geetanjali's brother Pradeep Aggarwal Saturday lodged a first information report against Garg
and his parents, accusing them of murder.
"Ravneet and Geetanjali got married in November 2007. Everything was fine for a few years but
the attitude of Ravneet and his parents towards Geetanjali started changing after she delivered
two baby girls (now aged around four and a half and three years)," Aggarwal said in his
complaint.
He demanded a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into his sister's murder.
“There is a higher court than the court of justice and that is the court of conscience It supercedes all other courts. ”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Alleging Sexual Harassment By High Court Judge, a Junior Judge Quits
NEW DELHI: A woman additional judge in Gwalior has resigned alleging sexual harassment by a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The judge asked her to "dance to an item song" and influenced her transfer to a remote location, she has alleged in a complaint to the President, the Chief Justice of India and the Union Law Minister.
Chief Justice of India RM Lodha told NDTV on Monday morning, "I haven't received the complaint officially... once I get it I will go through the complaint. Normally we ask for a report on the complaint from the Chief Justice of the High Court. In this case, I will seek a report from the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court and take action accordingly. I will do my best for the institution."
The additional judge resigned on July 15 and wrote to the CJI and others on August 1, Friday evening. "If this is how a mother, sister and wife can be treated, who is herself no less than a judicial officer duty-bound to protect society and law, what constitutional goals are we serving?" said the woman, who ironically headed a Vishaka committee against sexual harassment.
She has alleged that the High Court judge constantly pestered her and once sent her a message through an official to "perform dance on an item song" at a function at his home. She said she excused herself saying it was her daughter's birthday.
She also alleged that when she spurned the judge's "various advances and malicious aspirations", he targeted her professionally. "The administrative judge, along with district judge and district judge (inspection), possibly made a false, frivolous, baseless and malicious reporting to the chief justice of MP and got me transferred on July 8, in the mid-academic session of my daughters to a remote place Sidhi by overruling the transfer policy of MP HC," she has complained.
She said her appeal for an eight-month extension to allow her daughter's academic year to finish was rejected and has alleged that the judge threatened to "spoil my career completely," when she pleaded against the transfer.
"I was left with no option but to resign, so, I resigned on July 15 in compelling, humiliating and disgraceful circumstances to save my dignity, womanhood, self-esteem and career of my daughter," she has written.
Editorial : CRIMES CONFESSION by CJI & Others ?
- Questions Unanswered
Honourable CJI , Chairman NHRC & other public servants have failed to answer notice / questions in 30 days. Thereby , they have confessed to crimes on their own. Repeated silence to interrogation questions / charges amounts to admission of crimes by the accused.
Read INTERROGATE-JUDGES-POLICE
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com/2019/03/interrogate-judges-and-police.html?m=1
Who will bell the cat ? Who will legally prosecute erring Judges and police?
Your's
NAGARAJA MYSURU RAGHUPATHI
Legal Notice to Honourable Chief Justice of India
To,
Honourable Chief Justice of India,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,
New Delhi.
Honourable Sir ,
Subject : Legal Notice to Chief Justice of India
Are Judges , Police PERFECT ? Satya Harishchandra ?
Hereby , I challenge Chief Justice of India in the exercise of my FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES as a citizen of india , that subject to conditions I will legally prove the crimes of few judges , police , public servants within the government service and other criminals. Is the CJI ready to book those criminals , traitors , anti nationals ?
Since 29 years I am appealing to apex court for justice concerning various public issues , no justice in sight but injustices meted out one after another. But the same judges are SHAMELESSLY taking huge pay perks for years. Parasites feeding on Indian Public. Whenever questions of accountability are asked judges level contempt charges against the questioner or police fix him in fake cases or he is silenced by threats , murders , denial of jobs , etc.
Since 29 years in many ways they are trying to silence me. Just take the recent example of Justice Karnan who leveled corruption charges against specific judges with CJI. Instead of conducting a fair investigation into the matter , CJI tried to silence him by serving him contempt notice.
Our Judges , Police are NOT Perfect Not Satya Harischandras . There are criminals as well as honest people side by side in judiciary & police. We whole heartedly respect honest few in judiciary , police & public service. But we detest corrupt judges , corrupt police. Honest Judges & Police are not coming into open to prosecute their corrupt colleagues, why ? silenced ?
Criminalization of all wings of government has taken place , unfit people are in the positions of power. Corruption in judiciary , police , CBI , CVC , Public service is rampant. Now MAFIA is at work. Only few scandals , scams become public , many are buried. If one criminal public servant is caught other public servant who is also a criminal conducts name sake investigation , gives report , clean chit. Law courts rely on the government reports as evidences , courts are not bothered about credibility of reports or investigations. It is quid pro quo. Therefore technically criminal public servants are never proved for their crimes & convicted , as investigation itself is not fair.
A Crime may happen without the knowledge of police but cann’t continue for years without the connivance of police. A Crime reported to court cann’t continue for years without connivance of judges.
At the bottom of the paper , I have given web sites about few ACB raids on government officials and unearthing of crores worth property. How they have earned it , by misusing their official positions. Therefore government reports , records prepared by these officials , investigations conducted by corrupt police are suspect. But Law courts in various cases , considers government reports , records , statements of government officials as sacrosanct . Therefore in many cases injustice is meted out by court , as they depend on reports of corrupt government officials , corrupt police.
The public servants & the government must be role models in law abiding acts , for others to emulate & follow. if a student makes a mistake it is excusable & can be corrected by the teacher. if the teacher himself makes a mistake , all his students will do the same mistake. if a thief steals , he can be caught , legally punished & reformed . if a police himself commits crime , many thieves go scot-free under his patronage. even if a police , public servant commits a crime , he can be legally prosecuted & justice can be sought by the aggrieved. just think , if a judge himself that too of apex court of the land himself commits crime - violations of RTI Act , constitutional rights & human rights of public and obstructs the public from performing their constitutional fundamental duties , what happens ?
"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves for power and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt people’s representatives , police , public servants & Judges.
I don’t know whether secretariat staff of CJI office & DARPG / DPG officials are forwarding my appeals for justice , e-mails to you or not. They will be held accountable for their lapses if any. This notice is against the repeated failure of constitutional duties & indirect collusion with criminals by previous CHIEF JUSTICEs OF INDIA. Notice is served against them , to the office of CJI , NOT personally against you.
Please refer my appeal for justice through DARPG ;
DLGLA/E/2013/00292
DEPOJ/E/2013/00679
In india democracy is a farce , freedom a mirage. the most basic freedom RIGHT TO INFORMATION & EXPRESSION , is not honoured by the government,as the information opens up the crimes of V.V.I.Ps & leads to their ill-gotten wealth. The public servants are least bothered about the lives of people or justice to them. these type of fat cats , parasites are a drain on the public exchequer . these people want ,wish me to see dead , wish to see HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH closed . so that, a voice against injustices is silenced forever , the crimes of V.V.I.Ps closed , buried forever.
To my numerous appeals , HRW’s appeals to you ,you have not yet replied. It clearly shows that you are least bothered about the lives of people or justice to them .it proves that you are hell bent to protect the criminals at any cost. you are just pressurising the police to enquire me ,to take my statement, to repeatedly call me to police station all with a view to silence me.all of you enjoy “legal immunity privileges” ,why don’t you have given powers to the police / investigating officer to summon all of you for enquiry ?or else why don’t all of you are not appearing before the police voluntarily for enquiry ?at the least why don’t all of you are not sending your statement about the case to the police either through legal counsel or through post? you are aiding criminals ,by denying me job oppurtunities in R.B.I CURRENCY NOTE PRESS mysore , city civil court ,bangalore , distict court , mysore ,etc & by illegally closing my newspaper. Even Press accreditation to me as a web journalist is denied till date. there is a gross, total mismatch between your actions and your oath of office. this amounts to public cheating & moral turpitude on your part.
1.you are making contempt of the very august office you hold.
2.you are making contempt of the constitution of india.
3.you are making contempt of citizens of india.
4.you are sponsoring & aiding terorrism & organized crime.
5.you are violating the fundamental & human rights of the citizens of india and of neighbouring countries.
6.you are violating & making contempt of the U.N HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER to which india is a signatory.
7.you are obstructing me from performing my fundamental duties as a citizen of india.
8. As a result of your gross negligence of constitutional duties you have caused me damages / losses to the tune of RUPEES TWO CRORE ONLY.
9. You are responsible for crime cover ups mentioned in my RTI Appeals , PILs and continuation of those crimes unabated.
10. You are responsible for denial of information, which vindicates the crimes of powers that be.
11. You are responsible for physical assaults , murder attempts on me.
12. You are responsible for job denials to me at NIE , PES Engineering college , RBI Press , Mysore , Bangalore Courts.
13. You are responsible for my illegal retrenchment from RPG Cables , denial of medical care to me towards occupational health problems.
14. You are responsible for denying me legal aid.
15. You are responsible for illegal closure of my news paper.
16. You are responsible for denial of press accreditation to me as a web journalist till date.
17. You are responsible for repeatedly passing on my appeals to police. So that they can take statements , close the file under the threat of police power.
18. You have violated my Human Rights & Fundamental Rights.
19. In terms of Integrity , Honesty You & other public servants are nowhere near Baba Saheb B R Ambedkar , Mahatma Gandhi & Satya Harishchandra . Many Public servants are UNFIT to be in their posts.
You are hereby called upon to Pay damages to me and SHOW-CAUSE within 30 days , why you cann’t be legally prosecuted for the above mentioned crimes . If you don’t answer it will be admission of the charges by you. It will amount to confession of crimes on your own.
If i am repeatedly called to police station or else where for the sake of investigations , the losses i do incurr as a result like loss of wages , transportation , job , etc must be borne by the government. prevoiusly the police / IB personnel repeatedly called me the complainant (sufferer of injustices) to police station for questioning , but never called the guilty culprits even once to police station for questioning , as the culprits are high & mighty . this type of one sided questioning must not be done by police or investigating agencies . if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members like loss of job , meeting with hit & run accidents , loss of lives , etc , the jurisdictional police together with above mentioned accussed public servants , Chief Justice of India & Jurisdictional District Magistrate will be responsible for it. Even if criminal nexus levels fake charges , police file fake cases against me or my dependents to silence me , this complaint is & will be effective.
if anything untoward happens to me or my dependents , the government of india is liable to pay Rs. TWO crore as compensation to survivors of my family. if my whole family is eliminated by the criminal nexus ,then that compensation money must be donated to Indian Army Welfare Fund. afterwards , the money must be recovered by GOI as land arrears from the salary , pension , property , etc of guilty judges , police officials , public servants & Constitutional fuctionaries.
Thanking you. Jai Hind , Vande Mataram.
Send reply to :
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi
Editor , Dalit Online,
LIG 2 , NO 761 , HUDCO First Stage,
Laxmikantanagar , Hebbal ,
Mysuru – 570017.
Date : 10.03.2019…………………………………………..your’s sincerely,
Place : Mysore , India………………………………………….Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi
Answer Honourable CJI SCI , Honourable Chairman , NHRC & Honourable DG & IG of Police GOK
To
Honourable Chairman
National Human Rights Commission
New Delhi.
Honourable Sir,
Since 1990 , I as a citizen of India have brought to notice of SCI , NHRC & Police various crimes hoping for justice to the suffering public. Supreme court of India has enough time to judge trivial issues concerning movies , cricket , etc but it doesn’t have time to judge public issues concerning national security , accountability of judges , police , public servants in all these 29 years. After repeatedly appealing for justice , powers that be have meted out injustices to me personally to silence me. SCI has failed in it’s duties since 29 years , but judges are taking hefty pay , perks from our money , public money without feeling of shame or guilt.
Hereby , I request Honourable CJI , SCI , Honourable Chairman , NHRC & Honourable DG & IG of Police , Government of Karnataka , to provide information by answering following questions :
Subject : REPLY / OBJECTIONS in Case No. 888/10/15/2014
Following points are my reply / objections to case closure refer your letter dated 18.09.2018. My whole hearted respects to honest few in judiciary , police & public service.
1. Since 1990 how many applications of PIL , RTI are received by SCI , NHRC & Karnataka Police from me NAGARAJA M R ?
2. How many show cause notices are served to CJI , SCI by Nagaraja M R , since 1990 ?
3. Details of action taken in each case. If not why ?
4. Why compensation amount is not yet paid by CJI , SCI or NHRC to NAGARAJA M R , till date ?
5. How CJI , SCI & NHRC are going to protect the lives , civil rights of NAGARAJA M R & his family members ? If anything untoward happens to NAGARAJA M R & his family members CJI , SCI is responsible together with NHRC , jurisdiction police & district magistrate.
6. Why no criminal legal prosecution of CJI , NHRC Chairman , police , public servants for their failure of duties ?
7. Honourable CJI , SCI , Honourable Chairman , NHRC & Honourable DG & IG of Police , Government of Karnataka read full case details at following web sites & honestly
ANSWER :
https://sites.google.com/site/dalitoonline/answer-cji---loya-murder , https://sites.google.com/site/dalitoonline/interrogate-chief-justice ,
8. Statement of police are half truth.
9. Statements / complaints made by me in my e mails / e news paper when I was in free & fair atmosphere holds good forever. It overrides statements made before police.
10. Some of the complaints made by me are pending since years/ decades. Other than police summoning me repeatedly to question me , to take my statements , What else they have done? Just based on my statements before police , police have filed case closures subsequently NHRC / SCI also followed the same course. what other action did they take for years ? Did police , NHRC / SCI summon high & mighty people mentioned in my complaints even once ? Did they take their statements ? Did they conduct investigations? What are the outcome of those investigations ? Did police find out the persons & their motives for silencing me ? Did police police take action against them ? Have police formally requested government & supreme court for sanction to enquire powerful people enjoying legal immunity privileges? If not why ?
11. Fed up with inaction of police for years and understanding their practical difficulties I have appealed to NHRC and Supreme Court of India by way of PILs seeking justice. Till date I have not got justice from NHRC or SCI.
12. Public servants take thousands of rupees salary , perks every month on time without fail from public exchequer. But some of them don't do their duties properly in time. public made to wait for justice indefinitely for years together.
13. Is it not the duty of government to protect life , rights of all citizens and to enable them to perform their duties ? If goverment cannot do it’s duties then such public servants are waste bodies.
14. Does not the denial of justice in the above cases to me amount to cover up of crimes by police & judges ?
15. I have answered questions of police , IB number of times now it is the turn of police, judges to answer my questions seeking truth. Please read following web pages and answer within 30 days :
https://dalitsonline.blogspot.com/2018/08/torture-of-corrupt.html?m=1
16. In war soldiers cut off food / medicine supplies to enemy troops to cripple them , to reduce their fighting strength. In the same way my job opportunities in NIE Engineering college mysore PES college mandya RBI Press Mysuru RPG Cables mysuru Mysuru court & Bangalore courts were denied illegally. Who was behind it ?
17. Who behind denying registration to my news paper & denying press accreditation to me ?
18. Who behind physical assaults on me , threats to me , blank calls to me , stalking over my family ?
19. What action taken against those persons ?
20. I request you for justice , legal prosecution of guilty , legal prosecution of police and judges who by their inaction helped in crimes cover up.
21. As state police are not empowered hereby I request you for a transparent SIT probe monitored by NHRC & SCI.
22. Hereby I state if anything untoward happens to me or to my family members dependents NHRC will be jointly liable with CJI , jurisdiction police & District Magistrate for the crime.
23. Why i was not permitted to appear as an Amicus Curie before Jain commission of enquiry probing Rajiv gandhi assassination case ?
24. I have brought to the notice of SCI land grabbing of hebbal lake , beml quarters lake, hootagalli lake in the very early stages. Due to your inaction grabbings took place continues till date. Are you not complicit in the crimes ?
25. Why no proper action taken against management of RPG Cables for their crimes ?
26. Why i was not given legal aid to pursue my cases in SCI ?
27. If a commoner murders a person it is a crime if the same act done by police is it not a crime ?
28. If a commoner gives a false statement / false affidavit it is a crime , if the same act done by a judge, police, advocate is it not a crime ?
29. I have given list of crimes committed by judges , police , advocates to you earlier , still no proper legal action taken against culprits why ? Are the rules , law different for them ?
30. Few advocates , police , intellectuals ( ? ) have threatened me over phone , through social media , etc to silence me. They are nothing but stooges , cronies of corrupt. Why no legal action against them for Obstructing my Fundamental Duties and for violations of my fundamental rights , human rights ?
31. I have appealed to SCI regarding cases of atrocities against Dalits. Till date no proper legal action taken why ?
32. Are not the delays by you amount to denial of justice by way of time bar of case or death of applicant ?
33. Why SCI has not utilised my services to apprehend criminals within public service ?
Date : 10.03. 2019 Thank you
Place : Mysuru Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761, HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL ,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202
Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/ ,
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com/
Contact : editor@dalitonline.in , editor.dalitonline@gmail.com
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Judges Sex & Crimes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)