[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
The former Supreme Court employee who accused Chief Justice of India (CJI)<\/a> Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment said on Tuesday, April 30, that she will not be participating in any further hearings of the in-house committee that has been looking into her complaint.<\/p>\n In a statement to the media, the former junior assistant, alleged that the committee denied her request that it hold its inquiry under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act and follow the Vishakha guidelines \u2013 which the Supreme Court had itself formulated and which were later incorporated into law.<\/p>\n The woman said her decision to withdraw came after the panel refused to let her have a lawyer or a support person with her during the hearing. She said she suffered from impaired hearing and could not even follow what was dictated by Justice Bobde to the court official as a record of her statements before the committee.<\/p>\n She said the committee declined her request to record the proceedings on video or audio and she was also not supplied with copies of her statements made during the panel hearings of April 26 and April 29. Finally, she said no information was given to her about the procedure followed by Justice Bobde.<\/p>\n The woman said there is a need to adopt a \u201cprocedure that would ensure fairness and equality in the highly unequal circumstances\u201d that she is placed in. \u201cI had hoped that the approach of the committee towards me would be sensitive and not one that would cause me further fear, anxiety and trauma,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n The former junior court assistant has already appeared before the inquiry committee comprising Justice SA Bobde, Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Indu Malhotra twice, on April 26 and April 29.<\/p>\n When she appeared before the panel for the third time on Tuesday, she walked out due to \u201cto serious concerns and reservations\u201d. She said the panel\u2019s questions caused her more \u201cfear and trauma\u201d and was unsure if the process would help end the \u201cstress and harassment\u201d she has faced.<\/p>\n She said she was \u201ccompelled to walk out\u201d of the three-member committee\u2019s proceedings on Tuesday because the judges who are part of it did not seem to appreciate the fact that \u201cthis was not an ordinary complaint but was a complaint of sexual harassment against a sitting CJI\u201d and refused to allow her to be accompanied by a lawyer or support person during her deposition.<\/p>\n She said she put all her concerns down in writing in the form of a letter which she handed over to the three judges on Tuesday morning and was warned that if she withdrew from the proceedings, the inquiry panel would reach its findings without her participation.<\/p>\n \u201cI gave this letter to the committee just as the hearing commenced this morning. I told the committee that it would not be possible for me to participate any further if I was not allowed the presence of my lawyer\/support person. But this request was still refused by the committee and I was told that if I didn\u2019t participate they would proceed ex parte. I was told that there were certain questions on facts that they wanted me to answer. I declined to participate any further in the absence of my lawyer\/support person. The committee also asked me if I wanted to present any witnesses. I informed them that almost all the witnesses are working in the Supreme Court of India and there is no likelihood of them being able to depose fearlessly before the committee. I also informed the committee today that due to my present health condition and personal circumstances, this kind of stress can be detrimental and harmful to me.\u201d<\/p>\n She described how she was aggressively frisked when she first appeared before the inquiry committee on April 26 by policewomen, leaving her feeling humiliated and degraded. The former Supreme Court employee also claimed that she was followed by two men on a motorbike when she left the hearing.<\/p>\n The former employee said that she has noted down the partial number of the motor bike that followed her on the first day. Though she informed the committee of this, the judges did not take take it into consideration.<\/p>\n Also Read:\u00a015 Security personnel killed in Maoist attack in Maharashtra<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n When she appeared before the panel on Monday, she said she was again followed, this time by four men on two motorbikes. On this occasion, she also complained to the SHO of Tughlaq Road police station, who initially agreed to provide security to her. She claimed however, that after the SHO spoke to inspector Pankaj Singh posted at the Supreme Court guesthouse at 34 Prithviraj Road where the panel has been holding its meetings, he refused to provide security, saying, \u201caap to protected hi hai\u201d (you are already protected).<\/p>\n The 35-year-old woman, who mentioned in her letter to the committee that she is from a Scheduled Caste community and has had to struggle especially hard to accomplish what she had professionally, asked the external committee to look into the complaint given the fact that the allegations are against the \u201chighest seat of justice\u201d.<\/p>\n She added she had agreed to appear before the current in-house committee hoping that the judges would conduct a fair inquiry. Over the course of three hearings, however, she felt that the judges looked at her complaint more with suspicion than with sensitivity.<\/p>\n The committee denied her request that it hold its inquiry under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act and follow the Vishakha guidelines \u2013 which the Supreme Court had itself formulated and which were later incorporated into law.<\/p>\n The complainant has also said that the presence of a support person\/lawyer was not allowed during the hearings, which made her feel stressed and intimidated. Finally, the woman said that her request to make audio and video recordings of the proceedings was not accepted, apart from not being given a copy of what was being taken on record by the committee.<\/p>\n She said she felt \u201coverawed and scared\u201d when she appeared before the committee. She said the three judges repeatedly told her how, even though she had a law degree, she did not know about the appeals procedure against her dismissal. In her letter, the woman said she only received her LLB degree in August 2018 and is inexperienced and not trained in law. The woman said she was also intimidated by the judges\u2019 insistence to know why she took \u201cso long\u201d to file the complaint.<\/p>\n The former staffer says that when she responded to questions posed by the committee, the judges said, \u201caise nahin hota\u201d (it cannot be like that).<\/p>\n Also Read:\u00a0Central Forces will maintain polling booths in West Bengal, not state Police: EC<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n She claimed that during the first hearing on April 26, Justice Bobde told her that it was an \u201cinformal proceeding\u201d.<\/p>\n Justice Bobde told the news agency PTI that the proceedings were not a \u201cformal judicial proceeding\u201d. He also said the there was no time-frame to complete the inquiry and the future course of action will depend on \u201cwhat comes out of the inquiry\u201d which will be \u201cconfidential\u201d.<\/p>\n In a letter,\u00a0 she said she was unsure what the nature of the inquiry committee was. In the first hearing, she was told that it was an \u201cinformal proceeding\u201d and later that it was an \u201cin-house procedure\u201d. She was also unsure what the outcome of her participation would be and if she would get justice.<\/p>\n The woman asked that the proceedings be treated as a formal inquiry. She wanted the committee to follow the \u201cletter and spirit of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act\u201d.<\/p>\n The committee repeatedly asked her why she made the complaint of sexual harassment \u201cso late\u201d, the woman said. She said:<\/p>\n \u201cI found the atmosphere of the committee very frightening and I was very nervous because of being confronted and questioned by three Supreme Court Judges and without even the presence of my lawyer\/support person. Also because of my impaired hearing I was at times unable to follow what was being dictated as my statement. I was also not shown what was being recorded and no copy of my statement recorded on 26th and 29th April has been given to me till date.\u201d<\/p>\n The woman says she has lost hearing in her right ear, which she attributes to the \u201cstress and harassment\u201d that she and her family has faced.<\/p>\n