DALIT ONLINE – e News Weekly

Spreading the light of humanity & freedom

Editor: Nagaraja.M.R.. Vol.15..Issue.34........25 / 08 / 2019

Tale of Two Judges

- An appeal to all SCI Judges

Read the following cases of delhi judge and CJI gogoi. Law is same for both , however note the
difference in law enforcement. Note the difference in steps to find out truth, legal prosecution, enquiry.
Is CJI gogoi above law , constitution of India???

A honest person doesn't have to cover up anything, whereas a person who has committed wrong
cover ups. This cover up act by gogoi itself proves he has committed wrong. Don't be party to his cover
ups and criminals yourselves.

Gold medallist did the right thing. Do we commonners have true independence as
enshrined in the constitution. NO. Practically there are same laws but law enforcement
will be different for different persons even for same type of crime. Biggest Criminals
are within Judiciary & Police service. They are afraid even to answer following questions
:

INTERROGATE Judges & Police

https://dalit-online.blogspot.com/2019/03/interrogate-judges-and-police.html

Your's

Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi

Sexual Harassment of Junior by Judge

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, dismissed a writ petition filed by a Judicial Officer of Delhi Higher
Judicial Services, who is facing disciplinary proceedings alleging sexual harassment.

A Junior Judicial Assistant had filed a complaint against the judicial officer alleging sexual harassment
at work place. When the matter reached the Full Court, the Judicial Officer was placed under
suspension with immediate effect pending disciplinary proceeding contemplated against him. The
judge approached the Apex court seeking to quash the proceedings of Internal Complaints Committee
as well as Charge Sheet filed against him.
One of the contentions raised was that in view of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, there being an Inquiry Report by Internal Complaints
Committee as envisaged by Sections 11 and 13, the High Court could not have taken a decision to
initiate the inquiry or to suspend the judicial officer. The issues considered by the bench
comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha were:

1. Whether the High Court is a disciplinary authority of the petitioner, competent to initiate the
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and suspend him as per Delhi Higher Judicial
Service Rules, 1970 and All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969?
2. Whether the decision of the Full Court on 13.07.2016 initiating enquiry against the petitioner
and placing him under suspension was beyond jurisdiction?
3. Whether the Preliminary Inquiry Report submitted by Internal Complaints Committee dated
05.11.2016 ought to have been supplied to the petitioner and non-supply of such Preliminary
Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016 vitiated the entire proceedings?

Answering the first two issues, the bench observed that provisions of Sections 11 and 13 in no manner
affect the control of the High Court under Article 235, which it has with respect to judicial officers as
noted above.

"The power to suspend the judicial officer vests in the High Court. The Full Court of
the High court is in no manner precluded from initiating disciplinary inquiry against the
petitioner and placing the petitioner under suspension on being satisfied that sufficient
material existed. The High Court in its meeting dated 19.07.2016 has resolved to send
the complaint of the employee to the Internal Complaints Committee and the Internal
Complaints Committee having opined that inquiry need to be held, further steps were
taken in accordance with Act, 2013."

With regard to the third issue, the bench noted that under Section 11(1) in the second proviso, the
only contemplation is to make available a copy of the findings. Thus, when the report in which there
are no findings, parties are not entitled to have the copy, the bench said while dismissing the petition.

For justice’s sake, My Lord

By Urvashi Butalia
With its opaque handling of the sexual
harassment case against the Chief Justice of
India, the Supreme Court and its senior judges
have not only failed the victim but also the larger
public
As I write this, the Justice Ranjan Gogoi incident (where the
Chief Justice of India was accused of sexual harassment by a
junior member of his staff) has receded into the background.
The media have given up reporting on it, the Committee has
finished its secret work and has concluded that there was no
substance in the complainant’s affidavit and things have,
ostensibly, gone back to normal.

Except that they haven’t, really.

Somewhere out there is yet another woman who will carry a

lifelong sense of injustice. She will join millions of others who
carry a similar sense, but that fact will bring her no comfort.
There will be no joy in knowing she is not alone. And we will
have lost another chance to take that crucial next step towards
understanding how to address this complex and confusing
problem that confronts us today.

There’s no denying that the Supreme Court has long been

seized of the seriousness of the issue of sexual harassment at
the workplace. This is why the Court responded so positively to
the Vishaka petition and acted to frame the Vishaka Guidelines
many years ago. The idea was that the Guidelines would make
up for the absence of a law, until such time as the government
could frame the required law.

Both things happened, and neither would have happened had

both actors not had the political will to make this change.

And yet, both actors, the government and the Supreme Court,
reneged on their commitment to gender justice in the recent
case. If one accused the complainant of cooking up a
conspiracy to target the judiciary, the other supported the
Supreme Court’s accusation, and this before anything had been
proved. They closed ranks.

Neither thought of that crucial matter: The need for

transparency in your own functioning, and scrutiny of your
behaviour, especially if you are the lawmakers.

Over the years, because we are such a class- conscious

society, we’ve come to accept that the police will flout the law
as often as they will impose it, that lawyers too will betray their
own profession. But judges? And at the Supreme Court level?
Until recently, this seemed to be unthinkable.

You might say that judges, too, are fallible. Or that those who
framed the Vishaka Guidelines are not the same people who
occupy the Supreme Court today.
But surely this is not about individuals, it is about institutions, it
is about institutional ethics and honesty, institutional
accountability. If institutions fail their citizens, what then is left?

The Supreme Court and its judges in particular have earned

considerable respect in recent times for often being, in
increasingly difficult times, the citizen’s only recourse.

That is why it is so difficult to understand why the process was

so opaque and seemingly so biased. No one knows how the
judges arrived at their decision, no one knows why the
complainant was not allowed to have a lawyer. No one
understands why the advice of their own colleagues was not
listened to.

Even if these were technicalities and the judges in question had

stuck to the letter of the law, as interpreted by them, there are
other issues at stake. There’s that old piece of wisdom, that
justice must be done but it must also be seen to be done. This
can’t happen if everything is so opaque.

Over the last few years, as a number of cases of sexual

harassment at the workplace have come to the fore, and
women victims have begun to speak out, the complexity of the
issues we are confronted with have also come increasingly to
light.

How to deal with something that happened years ago? How to

deal with anonymous accusations? Whose jurisdiction is it if
someone working with you is accused of sexual harassment
that happened years ago? How to deal with cases that inhabit
that liminal space between coercion and consent? How to deal
with changing relationships? What about generational
differences? How to deal with employers saying they will not
employ women any more?

Everyone needs guidance in this — both guidance and

understanding. We need roadmaps, we need knowledge. What
we do not need is opacity. We need an understanding that the
issue we are confronted with involves a hard look at power
relations, at patriarchies, at human relationships and more.

This is what women’s groups drew attention to during the recent

incident. Time and again they urged that the principles of justice
and fairness be followed: Set up an impartial enquiry, give
everyone a hearing, take evidence into account, make a
judgement and be transparent. It’s only then that people will
believe you. Only then the interests of justice will be served.
Our Supreme Court and our senior judges — both men and
women — have sadly failed us in this.

Can we be blamed for thinking they’re just protecting their own?

20 questions for SC panel that cleared CJI of sexual harassment

charges: Why the bias, rush to decide and secrecy?
The Supreme Court's special in-house committee that investigated the
sexual harassment accusations against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan
Gogoi has given its verdict — it found “no substance” in the allegations and
has exonerated him completely. The Supreme Court’s secretary general
issued a terse note on the subject that has exploded into a major
controversy, with criticism mounting in mainstream and social media.
There were public protests against the judgment in Delhi and Bengaluru on
Tuesday, with many more cities expected to organise them in the coming
days.

The committee’s judgment and the authorities’ subsequent behaviour has

thrown up several troubling questions:

1. It reportedly took the committee just four sittings to arrive at a

conclusion. Why was it in such a hurry to render a judgment?

2. Why did the committee not try to correct the imbalance in power
between the accuser and accused in this unique case, by laying out a
transparent process and providing adequate legal and other support to the
complainant, or appoint an amicus curiae?

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. News18

3. After the complainant rejected and withdrew from the committee’s

proceedings, why didn’t the judges negotiate with her about her demands —
all of which were anyway standard legal protocols — rather than
immediately proceed without her?

4. Besides just the complainant and the CJI, did the committee speak to
other pertinent witnesses like the Secretary General of the Supreme Court,
or the police Station House Officer, who the complainant alleges took her to
the CJI’s residence to make her apologise to the latter’s wife (the
complainant says she has submitted a video recording of her interaction to
the SHO)?

5. According to Hindustan Times, “the three-member committee looked

only into sexual harassment allegations and did not go into the merits of
the disciplinary action taken by the Supreme Court against the
complainant. The woman was dismissed in December 2018 and she has
claimed this was part of the harassment she faced.” If true, doesn’t this
indicate a very partial investigation of the complainant’s grievances?

6. Hindustan Times reports that it has also learnt “that the panel has said
in its findings that before 19 April, when she wrote to 22 judgesof the court,
the complainant did not raise the allegation of sexual harassment or
victimisation despite having an opportunity to do so when she challenged
the disciplinary action in December 2018”. If true, doesn’t this indicate the
committee’s flawed and biased approach as it tries to shame the
complainant about not complaining earlier — a classic ruse to discredit
sexual harassment accusers?

7. The committee has decided to keep its report secret based on a 16-year-
old precedent set in the 2003 Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of
India case. Thus, the complainant herself has been denied any knowledge
of the committee’s reasoning in arriving at its conclusion. Is there any way
of appealing against this cover of secrecy, especially now that we have the
RTI Act?

8. In her letter to the committee on 7 May, the complainant pointed

out that the “Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 in Section 13 provides that both
parties have a right to receive a copy of the report”. Will the committee at
least follow this basic tenet of natural justice and provide its report to both
the accuser and accused instead of just one of them?
9. The committee’s report was submitted to the CJI and the next senior
judge, Justice Arun Mishra. According to some media reports, Justice
Mishra can decide whether to present the report to the full court, since the
committee was itself set up by a full court’s approval. How can the public
appeal to Justice Mishra on this front?

10. As lawyer Gautam Bhatia has argued, if the committee’s ‘informality’

insulated it from any requirement to follow existing laws on investigating
sexual harassment complaints, then surely its conclusions should also be
considered just as informal and disposable?

11. Can the complainant separately sue the Supreme Court as an

institution for denying her the due process laid down in current
law for sexual harassment complaints at the workplace as per
the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women at the
Workplace Act and the Vishaka Guidelines (framed by the
Supreme Court itself in 1997 to deal with workplace sexual
harassment complaints)?

12. Do the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women at the

Workplace Act and the Vishaka Guidelines apply to the Supreme Court as a
workplace? If not, then what law should specifically guide sexual
harassment complaints from Supreme Court employees?

13. In her press release subsequent to the committee’s judgement on 6 May,

the complainant stated, “I and my family members remain vulnerable to
the ongoing reprisals and attack.” What can she do to protect herself from
any subsequent attacks?

14. How will this affect the ongoing case of alleged fraud against the
complainant (which she claims was fabricated as part of the vendetta
against her), where the police is seeking cancellation of her bail?

15. The complainant’s press release on 6 May also said, “My accusation of
sexual harassment at the workplace and the consequent relentless
victimisation and reprisals against me and my family are substantiated by
documents and are verifiable.” Will she now release these to the public?
16. On Tuesday, the police declared a curfew under Section 144 around the
Supreme Court to prevent public protests against the committee’s report.
The police also detained more than 50 protesters, lawyers, activists and
media persons for around four hours to prevent their legal and peaceful
protests. Does Indians’ constitutional right to protest not apply when it
comes to the Supreme Court?

17. The media reported that the in-house committee was

instituted since “no other disciplinary proceedings or
procedures have been envisaged in the Constitution against
sitting high court and Supreme Court judges”. And as pointed
out by legal journalist Murali Krishnan, the Supreme Court has
a long history of protecting judges against cases and even
intimidating their accusers. Doesn’t this need to urgently
change? Isn’t it time we established a clearer investigative and
disciplinary mechanism against sitting judges?

18. On 19 April, the complainant couriered an account of her allegations

against the CJI to all 22 SC judges in a notarised 28-page affidavit with 108
pages of annexures. A full court on the administrative side approved the in-
house committee of three judges to inquire into the allegations against the
CJI. And according to media reports, Justice DY Chandrachud
recently wrote a letter to the three-judge committee, expressing not just his
own but more than 17 Supreme Court judges’ reservations about the
committee’s working, asking it not to proceed anymore with the ex parte
probe. Other media reports claimed that Justice Chandrachud was
speaking for himself, with the Times of Indiareporting that many brother
judges were upset with him for writing such a letter. Given all this, will our
Supreme Court judges finally push for an external inquiry, since only that
will now restore Indians’ faith in their Supreme Court’s impartiality
towards and moral authority over them?
19. Most experts seem to think that the complainants’ one
clear legalrecourse left is to invoke the CJI’s impeachment, which will
require a motion in Parliament sponsored by 100 Lok Sabha members or
50 Rajya Sabha members. Given that Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, and
probably the BJP, has thrown his weight behind the CJI, what will the
political Opposition do on this issue during election season when everyone
is watching their moves?
20. If the Supreme Court doesn’t do anything more about the complainant’s
allegations, how can it expect to have any moral authority in giving
judgments on sexual harassment or freedom of speech?

Delhi Police Cover up Crimes by Judges

To,
Honourable Police Commissioner
New Delhi.

Honourable sir ,
Please give me information about following under RTI Act :
1. Details of action taken against SCI judges Ranjan Gogoi, swatantra kumar , Ganguly , Judges
involved in roost resort sex scandal on charges of sexual harassment against women. If not reasons for
it. Please give me FIR number of each case.
2. List of public servants present and past MPs , IAS & IPS officers, etc with citizenship of foreign
countries in addition to indian citizenship. Also give me list of public servants with spouses of foreign
origin.
3. Details of action taken against SCI judge deepak mishra in medical college case , kalikho pul death
statement. President of India Pranab mukherjee was also accused by kalikho pul. If not reasons for it.
4. Details of our present MPs , IAS & IPS officers facing criminal charges .
5. Details of action taken regarding charges made by CBI director Alok verma against his deputy Rakesh
Asthana and vice versa. If not reasons for it.
6. Details of action taken against police who are aiding underworld don dawood ibrahim. If not reasons
for it.
7. Details of action taken against reliance industries in relation to document leak in power , petroleum ,
coal ministries. If not reasons for it.
8. Details of action taken against journalists, lobbyists involved in Radia tape. If not reasons for it.
9. Does Smt.Sonia Gandhi & Shri.Rahul Gandhi have citizenship of foreign countries in addition to indian
citizenship. Details please.
10. Does delhi police use third degree torture against detainees.
11. Details of action taken against public servants , ministers who aided terrorism at the expense of
public exchequer. If not reasons for it.

Please read documents at following web pages and answer :

https://www.scribd.com/document/402134326/INTERROGATE-Judges-Police ,
https://www.scribd.com/document/399783839/India-Sponsored-Terrorists ,
https://www.scribd.com/document/412164943/CJI-in-Jail ,
Thank you
Nagaraja Mysuru Raghupathi

Editorial : Contempt of Citizens by Judges

-Who will bell the cat ?

Our whole hearted respect to whole judiciary, honest few in judiciary, we want to state the following:
Contempt of Court is used as a weapon by few judges to silence those seeking justice , equality. While
handling a case one must look at the issue raised not at the social status of person raising it. Those
persons may be wrong in the mode of presenting the cases , but one must look at the facts , root cause /
issue. Judges & senior advocates are also human beings capable of doing exemplary deeds as well as
prone to err just like others. There is a false notion that if one makes eloquent quotes , uses Latin
lexicon he knows everything. Such people fail to understand and uphold basic tenets of our constitution
, what is the use of their oratory ?

1.Selection of judges is not transparent. Significant number of those selected are related to seniors in
one way or the other. They may be deserving but raises the question “ Are not any fit persons there in
the bar who are not related to anybody but deserving ?”
2.A senior advocate by his privilege gets superfast hearing of his case at the cost of a poor litigant
represented by a junior lawyer. For example a senior advocate is representing a movie producer in case
related to movie screening he gets priority over a junior advocate representing a person who has
suffered police torture or his land grabbing by Mafia, illegal dismissal from service ,etc. Thereby , Senior
advocate & presiding judge will be violating the poor man's right of equitable justice. Due these senior
advocates in some cases poor persons represented by junior lawyer are dead by the time of judgement
or suffer irreparable loss. Who will bear the cost , responsibility for this injustice senior advocate or
presiding judge ?
3.In India millions of people are barely surviving on a single piece meal a day, still they pay indirect tax
to public exchequer. Judges enjoy relatively huge salary , perks still judges demanded more pay &
perks. Don't they have human conscience ?
4.Corruption is rampant in judiciary just like other wings of government. This has been affirmed by
former Supreme Court Judges themselves. Therefore all the judgements are not sacrosanct. Some may
be and some may not be.

When issue of corruption was raised Justice Karnan was silenced by contempt of Court weapon ,
when disparity between senior & junior advocates was highlighted advocate M J Nedumpara was
silenced by the contempt of Court weapon. When inhuman unjustified pay , perks by high court judges
was questioned meghalaya journalist was Silenced by contempt of Court weapon. It clearly proves
nervousness of those judges who are caught on the wrong foot. What is needed is transparency of
judiciary , logically looking at the core issue raised. If the way of presenting the case is wrong punish
them but only after settling core issue not by silencing the whistleblower. By silencing whistleblowers
those judges are themselves making contempt of the very August office they hold , making contempt
of constitution of India and contempt of citizens of India, what legal punishment for those erring
judges ? Who will bell the cat ?
Edited, printed , published owned by NAGARAJA.M.R. @ # LIG-2 No 761,
HUDCO FIRST STAGE , OPP WATER WORKS , LAXMIKANTANAGAR , HEBBAL
,MYSURU – 570017 KARNATAKA INDIA Cell : 91 8970318202
WhatsApp 91 8970318202

Home page :
http://eclarionofdalit.dalitonline.in/ ,
https://dalit-online.blogspot.com/

Contact : editor@dalitonline.in , editor.dalitonline@gmail.com