The Supreme Court seems beset with difficulties, what with two simultaneous inquiries being ordered by the apex court at about the same time earlier this week. If the confidence of the public is to be reinforced in the functioning of our highest judicial forum, it may be best for the reports of both inquiries to become available at an early date.
Indeed, the two may be linked if our worst fears come true. Therefore, it is important that an earnest attempt is seen to be made to conclude the two inquiries early, without of course compromising on establishing the veracity and the integrity of the evidence in question.
While a departmental inquiry was eventually ordered — after an initial procedural goof-up by CJI Ranjan Gogoi himself — broadly conforming to the Vishakha guidelines dictated by the Supreme Court in 2013, it is a matter of surprise that ab initio the apex court did not have a majority of women members in the departmental proceedings. It should have known better and should have ensured such a composition.
Indeed, the Vishakha guidelines pertaining to cases of sexual harassment in the workplace also ordain that there should be an independent external member on the inquiry committee. This aspect of the requirements remains unfulfilled. This lacuna needs to be addressed immediately.
The CJI may have been wrongfully and maliciously targeted by a former junior female employee bearing a grievance, as is likely. Even so, the impression should be resisted that a cosy club of apex court judges may well protect one of their own. An external eye can help remove any such suggestion, even if made improperly and with motive. The other inquiry by a retired judge of the Supreme Court, Justice A.K. Patnaik, has been instituted to establish the veracity of sensational points made in the affidavit by a young lawyer Utsav Singh Bains.
Mr Bains has darkly suggested that former Supreme Court employees, and present employees of the apex court registry are in league with “fixers”, corporate elements, and other unscrupulous entities such as lawyers, to influence judgments through the use of money power by fixing benches. This is as shocking as it can get, and the woman who has brought the sexual misdemeanour allegation against the CJI is, it has been claimed, a part of this dirty ring.
Such a proposition boggles the mind, not least because the CJI is the Master of the Roster and is expected to be in full command of the situation. CJI Gogoi had in January 2018 been a part of a press conference by four top judges who had indirectly spoken of bench-fixing. But they were pointing a finger at then CJI Dipak Misra, and not at dangerous outsiders. A retired SC judge, Kurian Joseph, has since spoken of attempts to remote-control the top court. These anxieties must be put to rest without delay.
