Not end of matter

The restatement of a junior woman employee by the Supreme Court who was summarily dismissed when she had complained of sexual harassment against the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi last April raises questions about the fairness of the probe undertaken at the time. Not only was she dismissed summarily but her husband and her brotherin-law, both employed with the Delhi Police, were suspended on flimsy grounds before being reinstated. At the time, the SC Bar seemed to be divided, with the vocal members questioning the lack of a proper forum to address complaints of sexual harassment against a powerful court functionary. An unusual bench was constituted to consider the complaint against the CJI who himself took part in proceedings for sometime before withdrawing. As a result, a panel of three judges was constituted to probe the charges. It exonerated the CJI while the complainant boycotted the proceedings protesting the denial of representation through her lawyer. However, months after Gogoi’s retirement, the reinstatement of the complainant with full back pay and perks suggests that she was hard done-by because of her temerity to complain against the incumbent CJI. The sordid episode highlighted the lack of an institutional mechanism for probing complaints of sexual harassment on the lines of the Vishka guidelines in the very court which had first prescribed them for redress of such complaints. The complainant’s reinstatement should not be the end of the matter. It should persuade the CJI to put in place a formal mechanism for redress of such complaints regardless of the stature and status of the alleged offender. It is unlikely this case would have been handled the clumsy way it was if the complaint of alleged sexual misconduct was not against the sitting CJI himself.