CJI Gogoi Sexual Harassment case: Delhi Police revokes suspension of complainant’s kin

The Delhi Police has reportedly reinstated the husband and brother-in-law of the Court staffer who had complained of sexual harassment by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi..The Indian Express quotes Additional Commissioner of Police (Delhi Armed police) CK Mein as informing that, “The suspension order has been revoked. Both of them have been reinstated last week but the departmental inquiry against them is still pending.”.The suspension of both persons, working as constables with Delhi Police, followed the termination of the woman complainant’s employment at the Supreme Court on December 21, 2018. The woman staffer was terminated after multiple transfers on grounds that she had overstepped in questioning her transfers and that she had taken leave without authorisation..The woman’s husband was suspended on citing unsolicited calls made by him to CJI Gogoi. Her brother-in-law’s suspension was based on his alleged concealment of certain 2015 reports pertaining to a past criminal case and “unruly behaviour”..ACP Main reportedly declined to comment on the reasons why their suspension has now been revoked..The woman staffer had alleged that she was sexually harassed by CJI Gogoi while working as a Junior Court Assistant in October 2018. In a representation sent out to Supreme Court judges in April this year, she had detailed these allegations while seeking the initiation of an inquiry against CJI Gogoi..In her representation, she cited continuing harassment against her and her family as the reason for seeking the inquiry. She also complained that a false case of bribery was foisted on her, allegedly owing to her having resisted the alleged sexual advances..After reports of the allegations first broke on April 20, a Special Bench was convened on the same day to look into the matter of grave public importance touching upon the independence of the judiciary. This Special Bench had comprised of CJI Ranjan Gogoi along with Justices Arun Mishra and Sanjiv Khanna. The Court order passed that day did not reflect the name of CJI Gogoi..Subsequently, another Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Rohinton Nariman and Deepak Gupta was constituted to take up the matter. This Bench, however, focused on whether there was a larger conspiracy to frame CJI Gogoi and undermine judicial independence. Allegations to this effect were made by a lawyer, Utsav Bains..After he put up a public Facebook post decrying the woman’s allegations as part of a larger conspiracy to frame CJI Gogoi, Bains was summoned by the Court. He also submitted material in a sealed cover to support his claims. A Committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge, Justice AK Patnaik was eventually constituted to enquire into the conspiracy angle,.Recently, it was reported that the Justice Patnaik committee concluded that the alleged conspiracy to frame CJI Gogoi requires further inquiry. The Committee is expected to submit its report within the first two weeks of July..In the meanwhile, In-House Special Panel of Judges was constituted to look into the sexual harassment allegations against CJI Gogoi. This panel initially comprised of Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana and Justice Indira Banerjee..However, after the complainant raised concerns regarding Justice NV Ramana’s presence in the panel, Justice Ramana recused from the panel. In a letter penned by the complainant, it was stated that the close relationship shared by Justice Ramana with CJI Gogoi might not allow for an objective hearing of her side. Justice Indu Malhotra replaced Justice Ramana on the panel..This panel eventually concluded that there was no substance in the sexual harassment allegations levelled by the staffer after four days of sitting. Following summons, CJI Gogoi appeared before the Panel to depose on the fourth day..However, the woman complainant withdrew from the proceedings on the third day on apprehensions that the inquiry was not being conducted fairly. In a letter explaining her reasons, she stated, inter alia, that she was not being allowed to be accompanied by a lawyer or a support person and that no video recording of the proceedings was being made..After the Inquiry Panel gave a clean chit to CJI Gogoi, the complainant has also registered her protest over not being served a copy of the Panel’s report.