Starting A New Business? 7 Key Points To Keep In Mind.
In a clear travesty of justice, CJI Ranjan Gogoi has been given a clean chit by a 3-judge panel, which he set up himself, to investigate a sexual harassment case against him, and the details will not be made public. What faith should people have in 'due process'?
In a clear travesty of justice, CJI Ranjan Gogoi has been given a clean chit by a 3-judge panel, which he set up himself, to investigate a sexual harassment case against him, and the details will not be made public. What faith should people have in ‘due process’?
“Nemo judex in causa sua.” This was the first legal maxim I learned when I was training to get into law school, way back when I was in grade 12. It means, “No one can be a judge of their own cause.” Simply put, it was a rule against bias of all kinds, where one’s vested interests became a disqualifier in their engagement in deciding on a case.
Since the Chief Justice of India was given a clean chit by a panel that he constituted to investigate a charge of sexual harassment against him last night, this maxim has been jumping about in my mind. The panel comprised three members, Justices SA Bobde, Indira Bannerjee, and Indu Malhotra. They dismissed the complaint on the ground that they found no substance in the allegations in the complaint. Justice SA Bobde indicated that the report was submitted to the Chief Justice and the next senior judge of the Supreme Court of India, and that because it was an informal inquiry, it was not liable to be made public.
In the run up to this outcome, the survivor herself withdrew the case, suggesting that she did not feel like she would get any justice there. Her lawyer was not allowed to the hearing, the committee proceedings were not recorded via audio or video, and she was not given a copy of her statements during the first two sittings which took place on April 26 and 29. Following her withdrawal, the Chief Justice appeared before the panel and went ahead with the inquiry although the complainant had withdrawn her case.
Within the Supreme Court, echoing the concerns that many outside have raised, Justice Chandrachud was particularly concerned with the fairness of the approach. He wrote to the three judges on May 2, indicating that the “credibility of the Supreme Court would be further damaged if they decided to continue with the probe in the absence of the complainant.”
Due process is a fundamental legal requirement. It points to the provision of fair treatment through the normal judicial system and is a sound acknowledgment of a citizen’s entitlement to a hearing before an impartial judge. The rudiments of any judicial approach to investigating a crime must be centred on this as a matter of respect for human rights.
When Raya Sarkar’s list did the rounds, one of the most commonly heard arguments in response was the need to rely on due process. Many voices resisted this argument, specifically pointing at the power dynamics that are involved in most processes and institutional approaches to address workplace sexual harassment. It takes tremendous courage to speak up. But when procedure – read structural violence – is institutionally deployed to silence one who speaks up anyway, there can be no greater disservice than that.
Editor’s note: This is a developing story, and will be updated as more details come in.
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
Most of my women clients are caregivers—as mothers, wives and daughters. And so, they tend to feel guilty about their ambitions. Belief in themselves is hard to come by.
* All names mentioned in the article have been changed to respect client confidentiality.
“I don’t want to take a pay cut and accept the offer, but everyone around me is advising me to take up what comes my way,” Tanya* told me over the phone while I was returning home from the New Delhi World Book Fair. “Should I take it up?” She summed up her dilemma and paused.
I have been coaching Tanya for the past three months. She wants to change her industry, and we have been working together on a career transition roadmap.
After the May 2022 split verdict on marital rape by the Delhi High Court, the case has gone to the Supreme Court, which will hear it on 21st March 2023.
India’s rape laws have undergone many changes, especially after the 2012’s Nirbhaya Case. Following this case, India saw a massive protest demanding stringent rape laws. Within one year, in 2013, an amendment was welcomed that further changed the rape laws.
However, marital rape continues to remain a taboo term due to its legal treatment. Rape laws in India are governed under Section 375 of the IPC. Exception 2 of Section 375, however, does not recognise marital rape as a crime.
To change this, a petition to criminalize marital rape was filed by a nonprofit called the RIT Foundation, which sought to strike down Exception 2 of IPC Section 375. On January 2, 2022, the day-to-day hearings of the case began. On May 11, 2022, the Delhi High Court handed down a Split Verdict on Marital Rape. This petition has now been taken to the Supreme Court, listed for 21 March 2023.
Please enter your email address