In all the cases of sexual harassment in India which involve persons of high position and prestige, women are always placed at a corner that she is acting out of prejudice. In the present case involving CJI, the same thing is happening, no organisation or person is coming openly in support of women SC employee that justice will be done to her. This itself shows that she will not get any single court employee corroborating her claims even if it is true in all sense. Since this case involves CJI, a fair trial should be given to this case, not only citizens of India is looking at this case but also the whole world is watching this case that how safe India is for women employees. When we are grappling at press freedom index of 140 out of 180 countries, its responsibility of fourth pillar democracy to highlight the shortcoming in the case and help get justice to that women or CJI in a way that justice undoubtedly is seen be done.
What ‘lose people’s trust’? ‘People’s trust’ will be lost more by all this muckraking and screaming. Let the judges get on with their inquiry. My trust in the court has deepened due to the steps it has taken in this case of what seems to be a large conspiracy. SCI has been creating laws stifling the normal behaviour of people. Now, the SCI has fallen victim for what they made
A very well reasoned critique that should be read and digested by all concerned judges and officers of the Supreme Court. Why should the judiciary and legislature be exempted from the scope of the very judgement that the Supreme Court delivered in case of sexual harassment? For a nation to believe that they have an unbroken system and to trust the rule of law, the highest officers of the judiciary have a compelling moral obligation to be the role models for the citizens. Nothing can be more dangerous than cynicism on the part of the common man to set back democracy from its pursuit of a fair and equitable society.
Not just the Vishakha guidelines, any act of violation of any law by the members of the higher judiciary should not be inquired into by the Judiciary itself. Justice Karnan’s case exemplifies this predicament. The only platform where a proper action can be initiated against a SC/HC judge is the Parliament of India by invoking Article 124 (4) & (5) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. This is the privilege of the Legislature. By constituting a committee of its own, in order to establish its own integrity, the Judiciary has overstepped and usurped the powers of the Legislature and thereby breached the doctrine of Separation of Powers. The step will not afford an unequivocal and incontrovertible solution to the vexed issue. One may wonder what punishment can be awarded to the CJI by the said committee in the hypothetical scenario, wherein he is found guilty. It would be simply an ethical exercise sans any constitutional authority.
Consider how this would be handled by other democracies. An allegation of this form would first be handled by the local Thane. If necessary, state and national police would be called in. If validity was found the case would go to the local prosecutor and, ultimately, it would be heard by a local judge. In other words, nothing special would be done for a Supreme Court judge. In this case there are two glaring problems: first the Supreme Court should not have taken this case and second, the judge with a conflict of interest should not have spoken out from the bench. While this is a personal case, it should be noted that both of these principles have been violated by the Supreme Court numerous times for years.
When any case reaches the court, there is a plausibility of the charges levelled. Then the media verifies. The spokesman for the litigants in the courts doesn’t have any obligation to verify the charges. These court spokesmen will do when their client is innocent. Everyone else is spectator, like watching a cricket match to be entertained. Only people who have credibility are those who practice credibility are concerned. SC judges have fulfilled the role. If the complaint is not credible, the female Judge will point it out, just like it was the case of Lokpal appointment. Who dissented? India has seen the protest when judiciary does not function, as was the case in Nirbhaya’s case. Who gets to decide what the perfect procedures are? The common man or the advocate who is not committed to the quality of facts the circumstances? Unless humane corrective measures are taken the court may lose people’s trust.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of AFTERNOON VOICE and AFTERNOON VOICE does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.)
