[By rules of the court, the chief justice — in this case, Gogoi — is responsible for leading inquiries into any allegations of misconduct against judges. But legal experts say the rules do not provide an alternate process if the top judge is the one facing accusations.]
By
Niha Masih
 |
|
In
October 2017, Raya Sarkar, a law student at University of California at Davis,
posted
a list accusing South Asian academics of sexual harassment. (Maya
Craig,
Sarah Parnass, Jesse Mesner-Hage/The Washington Post)
|
NEW
DELHI — India’s #MeToo
movement has reached the highest court in the land, in a case that is testing
the legal system’s ability to effectively address sexual harassment allegations
against men in the judiciary.
In April, a female former staffer accused
Ranjan Gogoi, the chief justice of India’s Supreme Court, of making unwanted
sexual advances. She claims that she was dismissed from her job on frivolous
grounds because she refused those advances.
Gogoi has rejected the accusations, calling
them “unbelievable” and part of a plot to discredit the judiciary.
The Washington Post and other news outlets
are withholding the identity of the womanbecause Indian law mandates that
victims of sexual assault and harassment not be named in the media.
India’s Supreme Court has been hailed for
upholding progressive values in a largely conservative society, but Gogoi’s
case has exposed its limitations when it comes to dealing with sensitive
allegations against one of its own. The allegations are also a test of India’s
nascent #MeToo movement and the country’s struggle to tackle issues such as
workplace sexual harassment.
By rules of the court, the chief justice — in
this case, Gogoi — is responsible for leading inquiries into any allegations of
misconduct against judges. But legal experts say the rules do not provide an
alternate process if the top judge is the one facing accusations.
The accuser, who worked as a junior court
assistant at Gogoi’s office in his residence for three months, told her story
in a notarized affidavit on April 19 addressed to 22 sitting judges of the
court requesting an inquiry by retired judges into her situation.
In her complaint, she accused the chief
justice of touching her inappropriately in his home office in October.
“He hugged me around the waist, and touched
me all over my body with his arms,” she wrote. “Since he did not stop forcibly
hugging me, I was forced to push him away.”
In response, Gogoi chaired a hearing of the
Supreme Court on April 20 in which he publicly rejected the accusations and
alleged the woman had a criminal background. (The woman contends that a minor
dispute with a neighbor was settled via mediation and that another accusation
of fraud was falsified.) Several lawyers condemned the hearing. One called it a
“spectacle fit for a kangaroo court.”
Meanwhile, influential supporters stepped up
to defend Gogoi. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley — also a lawyer — wrote a blog
defending the chief justice , calling him “extremely well regarded.” The bar
council also came out in his support, labeling the woman’s complaint “false and
cooked up.”
Three days after the hearing, the court set
up an in-house committee of three sitting judges, all of whom are junior to
Gogoi, to conduct an inquiry into the allegations. On April 30, after three
appearances in front of the committee for which she said she was denied a
lawyer, the woman declined to participate further, saying she was “not likely
to get justice” under these “highly unequal circumstances.” Gogoi appeared
before the panel on Wednesday.
The woman’s statement also alleges that after
she resisted Gogoi’s advances, her life changed. In a meeting with a small
group of journalists before her allegations were published, the woman said she
was transferred three times to different departments before being dismissed
from her job in December. One of the reasons cited for her dismissal: taking a
half-day leave without approval.
Over the next two months, she said, two
members of her family were suspended from their jobs as police officers, a
third was dismissed from a job at the court, and she was arrested in a fraud
case. A man, whom she said she does not know, filed a police complaint accusing
her of taking money from him in exchange for promising to get him a job at the
court.
Faizan Mustafa, the vice chancellor of NALSAR
Law University in Hyderabad, said the situation presents a “crisis of
credibility” for the court. He said that the chief justice could have
voluntarily submitted to an inquiry by the committee that is responsible for
handling sexual harassment complaints at the court, even though judges
ordinarily do not fall under its purview.
The absence of clear mechanisms for dealing
with sexual harassment claims against judges is not new. In 2013, a three-judge
panel of the court indicted a retired judge for “unwelcome conduct of sexual
nature” with an intern. But it did not recommend any action, in part because
the judge had already retired.
India’s #MeToo movement erupted late last
year. In October, a junior minister resigned after more than a dozen women
accused him of sexual harassment. He denied the allegations and sued one of the
women for defamation.
Rituparna Chatterjee, a journalist who helped
compile #MeToo accusations against prominent men on social media last year,
said that women’s accounts are invariably questioned. “Whenever a woman speaks
up, the system actively fights to keep her down,” she said.
The current case is the biggest test yet.
“The court must come out clean and impartial and show commitment to due
process,” Mustafa said. “The rule of law must apply equally even to the highest
constitutional offices.”
Read more
