New Delhi : After media reports of sexual harassment allegations against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, a bench led by the CJI did not pass any orders on allegations and asked media to show restrain to protect independence of judiciary. CJI said the allegations are baseless.
The CJI has been accused of sexual assault by a former junior court assistant. In an affidavit addressed to the Supreme Court, the woman officer alleged that he had touched her inappropriately and hugged her against her wishes. After she resisted his advances, she was transferred to three different departments and then unceremoniously terminated from her post. Moreover, she alleges that her family members are also being harassed.
In a response made today by the Supreme Court Secretary General’s office, all the allegations have been denied.
A special hearing on the matter was held in the Supreme Court today. CJI Ranjan Gogoi was sitting with Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. KK Venugopal and Tushar Mehta appeared before the Bench. Attorney General and Solicitor General were present in the Supreme Court today.
CJI Gogoi, “Independence of judiciary is under serious threat, very hurt with the allegations being leveled. 4 media houses have published stories in great detail. I received communication from them.”
“A bank balance of Rs. 6,80,000 is all I have. They cannot catch me on money. So they have brought this up. After 20 years, this is the reward a Chief Justice of India gets”, CJI Gogoi said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta prodded the Bench to register a complaint in his name but court refrains as of now. “We are not passing any judicial order at this moment. We however ask media to show restraint, responsibility and wisdom so that independence of judiciary is not affected by baseless allegations, Supreme Court”, the bench stated.
Official response to sexual harassment allegations against Chief Justice of India
A former junior court assistant has alleged that the Chief Justice of India sexually harassed her in October 2018. In an affidavit sent to 22 judges of the Supreme Court on Friday, a former junior court assistant who worked in the residence office of the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, has alleged that he had made sexual advances on her at his residence office on October 10 and 11, 2018.
She also alleged that she and her family had been victimised as a result of her rebuffing him.
In response to queries, the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India replied: “The allegations regarding 11 October 2018, as well as other allegations as can be discerned from your emails, are completely and absolutely false and scurrilous and are totally denied.
The registry of the supreme court of india had posted this individual, who was employed at a level equal to a lower division clerk, in a routine manner at the residence office of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India, where in addition to her, there were several other employees also working as a part of the home office of the CJI, and at any given point of time, there were atleast 5-6 other present as a part of the home office of the CJI.
She worked as part of the home office of the Chief Justice of India only for a short period, and as informed, given the nature of her duties, she had no occssion to interact directly with the Chief Justice of India.
[The woman’s name redacted] was dismissed from service as per procedure. Her brother-in-law was terminated as he was only a temporary employee at that stage and his performance and conduct was reported not to be satisfactory.
It is not open to anyone to make unsolicited calls or uninvited approaches to the office of the Chief Justice of India, especially an employee who has already been dismissed, and who previously engaged in inappropriate conduct. Since unsolicited calls and messages were received by the office of the CJI, a complaint had been made by the registry of the Supreme Court. Whether departmental enquiry was initiated against any member of her family by the Delhi Police, is something which the Delhi Police authorities might have done as per rules.
The motive behind these false and scurrilous allegations is obviously mischievous. As referred to in your letter, there is a criminal case pending against her, where very serious allegation have been made, of her having taken a bribe to assure employment in the Supreme Court of India. It has been learnt that there is an application for the cancellation of bail earlier granted to her, which is listed for hearing on 20.04.2019 on account of her having made threats to the complainant of the said case. It would be extremely relevant to mention that the concerned individual and her family have criminal antecedents.
There were previously 2 criminal cases which had been instituted against her i.e. (1) FIR No. 484/11, P.S. Hari Nagar u/s 324, 341, 354, 506 , 34 IPC; (2) DD No. 30A dated 05.03.2012 u/s 107/150, IPC, P.S. Hari Nagar, SEM Court, Moti Nagar.
Throughout her employment in the Supreme Court, whether during her posting at home office of the CJI, or even subsequently after she was transferred out of the home office of the Chief Justice of India, or at the time she was terminated, or even thereafter, there were no complaints made by her of the nature now being alleged. It is not only mischievous but a complete afterthought of her to make these false allegations at this time.
In fact, on the other hand, in the interregnum, there were complaints made against her by the secretariat of the Chief Justice of India, to the Secretary General on account of her inappropriate behavior, and this resulted in her transfer out of the home office of the CJI. Apart from the misconduct formally recorded in the complaint by the secretariat, there were other counts of misconduct on her part.
It appears that these false allegations are being made as a pressure tactics to somehow come out of the various proceedings which have been initiated in law, against her and her family, for their on wrong doings. Its is also very possible that there are mischievous forces behind all this, with an intention to malign the institution.”