Hon’ble Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly; a few months ago this name was synonymous with landmark judgments such as the 2G spectrum, president’s power of pardon, and violation of fundamental rights during emergency among various others. But come November 2013, and the now retired highly respected member of the Bench is known for a completely different thing, i.e. for being the Supreme Court judge who allegedly tried to take advantage of a young law intern working under him.
24th December 2012, exactly a year ago from today, what supposedly transpired in the hotel room of Le Meridien between the NUJS student who goes by the name of Stella James and Mr. Justice (Retd.) A.K. Ganguly, must have been a cause of trauma and concern for the said student then, and has undeniably become something akin to it, for the Justice (Retd.) now. The case first came to light on 11th November 2013, through the Times of India, where the victim’s blog had been cited and it was shown how such incidents are ‘not uncommon’ with the Higher Judiciary; though ‘speaking out against them is nearly impossible.’
The basic framework of the plot still remains the same in both Stella James and Justice (Retd.) Ganguly’s version of what actually happened that fateful day. The contradiction lies in the fact that Justice Ganguly has throughout been denying the charges placed on him by the 3 member committee comprising of Justices R M Lodha, H L Dattu and Ranjana P Desai; while the law intern (and also the committee despite denying its jurisdiction to take any action on the pertaining issue) has maintained that the charges are true.
Justice (Retd.) Ganguly apart from denying the charges before the committee and the media, has also stated that no action can be taken against him under the newly amended law which makes sexual harassment an offence, since the said law was passed in 2013 while the incident has been reported to be of 2012 (punishment cannot be given for criminal offences ex post facto). What he has neglected though, is that de minimus non curate lex has never been applicable to cases of sexual harassment; it has always been a crime punishable by the law (recalling KPS Gill v. Rupan Deol Bajaj). Here, a slight problem is that Stella James as of yet has not filed any formal complaint to the police. Though, now after the committee has submitted its report, the police is free to take suo moto cognizance of the case and investigate it (as happened with Mr. Tarun Tejpal).
In a fresh move Justice (Retd.) Ganguly has written a letter to the Hon’be CJI stating his innocence and highlighting the issue that while he had been denied a copy of the petitioner’s (Stella James’) complaint and statements; the same is now out in the media due to a possible leak by a law ministry official. Also the use and distribution of facts from Stella James’ affidavit by Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising’s open letter to the Prime Minister’s Office in which she asked for Justice (Retd.) Ganguly’s removal as Chairperson West Bengal State Human Rights Commission has been questioned by him. He further alleged that the whole fiasco has been done as part of a conspiracy, with the motive to malign his name.
Replying to Justice (Retd.) Ganguly’s 8 page letter, Stella James in her blog clarified her motive behind the whole action. According to her, she did not come out with the judge’s name earlier and lodge a police complaint due to her inhibitions and reluctance; and decided to bring out the matter through her blog instead because she felt “it was important to warn young law students that status and position should not be confused for standards of morality and ethics.” She has also said that Ms. Jaising had acted with her consent and hence was justified in giving out her story to the newspapers. Though she has maintained that it is her discretion whether to lodge a formal complaint or not and this discernment should be respected.
Again, the three bench committee in its report submitted to the Hon’ble CJI despite acknowledging Justice (Retd.) Ganguly involvement in the case stated “Considering the fact that the said intern was not an intern on the roll of the Supreme Court and that the concerned Judge had already demitted office on account of superannuation on the date of the incident, no further follow up action is required by this Court” and thus in a politically correct move absolved itself of all responsibility regarding the affair.
The Hon’ble Apex court is known to be a protector of women rights and has always been eager to go a step forward in the process of defending and guarding a woman’s dignity and honour. Despite all keenness it has shown in the past; the Hon’ble Court’s stand in the case at hand has portrayed a dismal aspect of the nation’s judiciary, and it is abjectly disappointing to see the matter being swept under the carpet in such a fashion. Here, the Supreme Court could have utilized its extra ordinary jurisdiction and taken the matter into consideration suo moto, though according to legal luminaries it would have set a bad precedent. But is a bad precedent really of more importance than a girl’s dignity and self-respect?
It can be stated without a doubt that had the said offender not been a former member of the judiciary; the attitude of the committee would have been drastically different. In no world can it be acceptable that a person walk scot free after trying to harass a girl sexually, only because he formerly was an Hon’ble Judge and still is sitting in a position as important as the Chairman of a State Human Rights Commission (West Bengal). It would be more appropriate if stricter action was taken in such cases in order to set forth an example that law cannot be mightier than the king; no one stands above the law!
But instead of taking action against the Hon’ble Justice (Retd.), what is being done instead, by the guardians of our constitution, is requesting the Hon’ble Chief Justice to remove the female staff assigned to them. Trying to pull off an Indira Jaising here; is it such a crime to speak out against harassment, My Lords?
24th December 2012, exactly a year ago from today, what supposedly transpired in the hotel room of Le Meridien between the NUJS student who goes by the name of Stella James and Mr. Justice (Retd.) A.K. Ganguly, must have been a cause of trauma and concern for the said student then, and has undeniably become something akin to it, for the Justice (Retd.) now. The case first came to light on 11th November 2013, through the Times of India, where the victim’s blog had been cited and it was shown how such incidents are ‘not uncommon’ with the Higher Judiciary; though ‘speaking out against them is nearly impossible.’
The basic framework of the plot still remains the same in both Stella James and Justice (Retd.) Ganguly’s version of what actually happened that fateful day. The contradiction lies in the fact that Justice Ganguly has throughout been denying the charges placed on him by the 3 member committee comprising of Justices R M Lodha, H L Dattu and Ranjana P Desai; while the law intern (and also the committee despite denying its jurisdiction to take any action on the pertaining issue) has maintained that the charges are true.
Justice (Retd.) Ganguly apart from denying the charges before the committee and the media, has also stated that no action can be taken against him under the newly amended law which makes sexual harassment an offence, since the said law was passed in 2013 while the incident has been reported to be of 2012 (punishment cannot be given for criminal offences ex post facto). What he has neglected though, is that de minimus non curate lex has never been applicable to cases of sexual harassment; it has always been a crime punishable by the law (recalling KPS Gill v. Rupan Deol Bajaj). Here, a slight problem is that Stella James as of yet has not filed any formal complaint to the police. Though, now after the committee has submitted its report, the police is free to take suo moto cognizance of the case and investigate it (as happened with Mr. Tarun Tejpal).
In a fresh move Justice (Retd.) Ganguly has written a letter to the Hon’be CJI stating his innocence and highlighting the issue that while he had been denied a copy of the petitioner’s (Stella James’) complaint and statements; the same is now out in the media due to a possible leak by a law ministry official. Also the use and distribution of facts from Stella James’ affidavit by Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising’s open letter to the Prime Minister’s Office in which she asked for Justice (Retd.) Ganguly’s removal as Chairperson West Bengal State Human Rights Commission has been questioned by him. He further alleged that the whole fiasco has been done as part of a conspiracy, with the motive to malign his name.
Replying to Justice (Retd.) Ganguly’s 8 page letter, Stella James in her blog clarified her motive behind the whole action. According to her, she did not come out with the judge’s name earlier and lodge a police complaint due to her inhibitions and reluctance; and decided to bring out the matter through her blog instead because she felt “it was important to warn young law students that status and position should not be confused for standards of morality and ethics.” She has also said that Ms. Jaising had acted with her consent and hence was justified in giving out her story to the newspapers. Though she has maintained that it is her discretion whether to lodge a formal complaint or not and this discernment should be respected.
Again, the three bench committee in its report submitted to the Hon’ble CJI despite acknowledging Justice (Retd.) Ganguly involvement in the case stated “Considering the fact that the said intern was not an intern on the roll of the Supreme Court and that the concerned Judge had already demitted office on account of superannuation on the date of the incident, no further follow up action is required by this Court” and thus in a politically correct move absolved itself of all responsibility regarding the affair.
The Hon’ble Apex court is known to be a protector of women rights and has always been eager to go a step forward in the process of defending and guarding a woman’s dignity and honour. Despite all keenness it has shown in the past; the Hon’ble Court’s stand in the case at hand has portrayed a dismal aspect of the nation’s judiciary, and it is abjectly disappointing to see the matter being swept under the carpet in such a fashion. Here, the Supreme Court could have utilized its extra ordinary jurisdiction and taken the matter into consideration suo moto, though according to legal luminaries it would have set a bad precedent. But is a bad precedent really of more importance than a girl’s dignity and self-respect?
It can be stated without a doubt that had the said offender not been a former member of the judiciary; the attitude of the committee would have been drastically different. In no world can it be acceptable that a person walk scot free after trying to harass a girl sexually, only because he formerly was an Hon’ble Judge and still is sitting in a position as important as the Chairman of a State Human Rights Commission (West Bengal). It would be more appropriate if stricter action was taken in such cases in order to set forth an example that law cannot be mightier than the king; no one stands above the law!
But instead of taking action against the Hon’ble Justice (Retd.), what is being done instead, by the guardians of our constitution, is requesting the Hon’ble Chief Justice to remove the female staff assigned to them. Trying to pull off an Indira Jaising here; is it such a crime to speak out against harassment, My Lords?
No comments:
Post a Comment