As a storm brews in the Supreme Court over the sexual harassment allegations against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and the subsequent handling of the same, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has decided to back the CJI and has condemned the survivor for levelling allegations against him. Now, several lawyers have written an open letter to the BCI for their stand, and have said that the BCI statement does not represent their views on the matter.
On Friday, a 35-year-old woman who used to work as a junior court assistant in the Supreme Court of India, wrote to 22 judges of the court alleging sexual harassment by the CJI. Soon after the allegations were made public on Saturday by The Wire, Caravan, Scroll and The Leaflet, a special sitting was convened by a three-judge Bench comprising the CJI, Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Sanjeev Khanna, where the Solicitor-General and Attorney-General were present. Neither the woman nor her lawyers or representatives were called for this special sitting.
In a statement to PTI, BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra said, “These are all false and cooked-up allegations and we condemn these kinds of acts. These kind of allegations and actions should not be encouraged. This is an attempt to malign the institution. Entire bar is standing in solidarity with the Chief Justice of India.”
The statement did not go down well with many lawyers, especially the Chairperson’s comment that the entire bar stands in solidarity with the CJI.
Going against this statement, in an open letter to the CJI, lawyers Ashish Goel and Gautam Bhatia have termed the events that took place following the publishing of allegations a ‘travesty of justice’.
The letter states that the views of the chairperson do not represent the views of the entire Bar.
The letter says: “...we, as members of the legal profession, unequivocally condemn and distance ourselves from the unconstitutional stand taken by the Bar Council of India in the instant case.”
Demanding an independent inquiry into the allegations, the letter outlines three broad reasons:
That the CJI should not have been a part of the three-judge bench, and should not have used his office to respond to what was a personal allegation.
The matter should have been referred to the Internal Complaints Committee of the Supreme Court for an independent inquiry. The letter states that by not doing so, the CJI has “exhibited disdain”.
The allegations cannot be dismissed as being wild, scandalous, or politically motivated.
Urging the Bar Council chairperson to withdraw his comments, the letter invited lawyers to add their signatures to the same. The letter can be found here.