Students of the National Law Universities Students Consortium;;, which includes 17 NLUs that have a student body or have appointed student representatives, have made a statement condemning the conduct of the Supreme Court in handling the allegations of sexual harassment against the apex judge at the apex court.
The statement had been drafted by the NLSIU Bangalore Student Bar Association (SBA) and endorsed by the other members of the consortium.
A Supreme Court inquiry committee of three judges had yesterday dismissed the allegations ex parte, after the complainant bowed out of the process having not been allowed to appear before it with her lawyer present. The procedure has been widely criticised in the mainstream media.
NLU students have added their voice to the chorus with strong words, noting that they “fully condemn the brazenness of the arbitrary exercise of power displayed by Justice Mr. Ranjan Gogoi in responding to the sexual harassment allegations levelled against him”.
One student involved in the process told us that the statement reflects “the overall way in which the matter has been dealt with, without a semblance of following due process and principles of natural justice - culminating into the dismissal of allegations”.
The law students wrote in their statement that the initial press conference-cum-special bench presided over by Gogoi was a violation of natural justice, which “feeds into the existing problematic culture within the legal community that condones and normalises sexual harassment”.
Furthermore, the “3-judge departmental enquiry constituted by Justice Bobde has been a travesty of justice for the complainant. We reiterate the need for an independent, transparent and impartial inquiry of the matter, wherein the complainant is afforded full respect and consideration, and in doing so, strongly reaffirm our belief in the judiciary’s importance in a constitutional democracy guided by due process and the rule of law”.
Full statement below
Statement against travesty of justice at the Apex Court:
We, as students of law at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, and as equal stakeholders in the legal community and its future, fully condemn the brazenness of the arbitrary exercise of power displayed by Justice Mr. Ranjan Gogoi in responding to the sexual harassment allegations levelled against him. While we respect the authority of the judiciary to examine the merits of the allegations made out in the affidavit by the complainant, we express deep concern at the dismissive response to the complaint by the Justice Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, the Secretary General and Bar Council.
We believe that the treatment of the matter by the Chief Justice of India in conducting a parallel enquiry constitutes a violation of two key principles of natural justice. First, that no man shall be a judge in his own cause, and this violation extends to the appointment of the enquiry committee by the accused himself. Second, that the complainant was given no notice of the special hearing, and was openly vilified in court.
We fear that this response feeds into the existing problematic culture within the legal community that condones and normalises sexual harassment. It deters women who may be victims of harassment within the asymmetrical power structures that exist in society from seeking relief before the highest court of the land and the guarantor of constitutional protections. We reiterate the inescapable conclusions reached after the MeToo movement – that women are routinely disbelieved, shamed and suppressed at the institutional level when they voice their experiences, and we believe that the Supreme Court today, with due respect to the outcome of the proceedings, has partaken in the same.
We support the statements issued by the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Women in Criminal Law Association and the counter-statement issued by our alumnus, Mr. Gautam Bhatia along with Mr. Ashish Goel.
The 3-judge departmental enquiry constituted by Justice Bobde has been a travesty of justice for the complainant. We reiterate the need for an independent, transparent and impartial inquiry of the matter, wherein the complainant is afforded full respect and consideration, and in doing so, strongly reaffirm our belief in the judiciary’s importance in a constitutional democracy guided by due process and the rule of law.
This statement has been drafted by National Law School of India University, Bangalore and is endorsed by the NLU’s Students Consortium.
Comments
Why did other NLUs join in? The need of the hour is to these other NLUs to unite and demand INI status for NLUs, which NLSIU students secretly do not want as the status quo suits them.
And why has not a single NLSIU person spoken against Lawrence Liang? Clearly, these are Lutyens lefties joining the conspiracy to derail the SC and delay corruption cases against Congress.
Also, it appears that the article has misquoted the statement. The statement was 'endorsed by the NLU’s Students Consortium' not 'made by them'.
Kindly say a word or two about Lawrence Liang.
*signs petition against Gogoi*
*deletes Wikipedia reference to Liang's SH case *
1. Why wasn't an FIR filed in the matter?
2. should these allegations be ultimately found to be baseless, would it not be only appropriate to initiate malicious prosecution against the alleged 'victim'.
3. Under what provisions has cognizance been taken of the 'affidavit' filed by the victim, in the instant case?
I do hope other colleges/universities also come together and release similar statements.
Are the current crop of NLSIU also to be painted with the same brush as those that passed ages ago? Do you imply that other NLUs that endorsed this automatically also endorse ALF's stand?
Feel free to criticize the ALF and it's supporters in this matter, feel free to point out their hypocrisy, indeed many have recently pointed out that the SC does exactly the same thing -- preach transparency while maintaining none.
However giving a matter of such import a political tinge (where there appears to be little evidence of it, if looking primarily from the point of view of the complainant) is missing the wood for the trees.
The matter is simply this: serious allegations, seeming well supported by a victim have been brought forth in the media. To maintain the dignity of the Supreme Court, for which much of the country has tremendous respect, the CJI and the committee must act with dignity and prudence, with justice at the very least appearing to be done.
First, the main difference here is about that much criticized term, due process. The CJI case displayed a failure of due process. In Lawrence's case, no one has claimed that there was a failure of due process, though the parties have both expressed dissatisfaction, either with the way they've used the facts to come to a finding, or with the quantum of punishment.
Second, whatever our personal views about Lawrence, the AUD case involves complex questions of law as well as justice. It's not as black and white as "Academic harasses Student". You can read the Wire or Scroll to acquaint yourself with these questions.
Third, on the lack of a statement by the alumni. I am aware of the pitfalls of staying silent in the face of harassment, but in this case, that doesn't apply. An inquiry happened, a finding was reached, punishment was handed out, and the law generally worked the way it was supposed to (and all of this was public). You can nitpick with the specifics, but this wasn't a failure of justice.
The NLS alumni (individually or as a body) don't owe anyone a statement on the incident. We are not your [insert suitable word of your choice here].
1) Who gave the right to this group to represent us. They are some of the students who derive identify from the instructions and otherwise have no identity or work.
2) The desire of these racketeers that the CJI should go on a leave for 3 months gives out the real motivation for the entire racket. These people and their ilk is trying to determine the composition of the benches in which their cases come up.
3) The complainant raised an objection to the composition of the inquiry panel, which had no basis in law. The objection was met and she got a panel in which 2 of the 3 were women to give her comfort. The complainant wants a copy of complaint she herself wrote and is supposed to remember it. No court allows one to see one's own complaint to refresh. Then no in house inquiry allows for the representation by lawyer even by the one complained of. The lady sent copies to all the 22 judges and thereafter to electronic media of only a specific vintage specializing in certain bent of news. That itself shows her ability to plan a blackmail operation not her vulnerability and being intimidated.
4) No inquiry can be a phishing one. Asking for call records of the complained one shows that the intention was to fish for information to prolong the process and blackmail.
If the complainant is to be given a copy of the report, then we will demand that it be made public so that honest citizens like us could explore the possibility of contempt.
https://twitter.com/rishibagree/status/1126920058054168581