So, it would appear that the Chief Justice of India, His Lordship Mr Justice Ranjan Gogoi, has been cleared of the 'sexual abuse charges' made by an ex employee in his household. The exoneration has come from a probe panel comprising Mr Justice S.A.Bobde, Mrs.Justices Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra, which sat in line with the mandate of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaisingh case. And India heaved a collective sigh of relief. In particular, the judicial family of which the Chief Justice is the Kartha, must feel relieved over the miasma of doubt hovering over the judicial pulpit being cleared.
We had the surgical strikes following the Uri tragedy. And then the Balakot air strikes, deep inside of PoK, following the Pulwama massacre. The immediate reaction of the opposition and “liberal” media, included, was one of warmly applauding our air force personnel for a clean strike. Then the true colours surfaced when opposition fanned by the liberal media sought proof of the Balakot strike. It was a national security issue. The decision was taken at the highest echelons. Nothing mattered. What we needed was proof. Possibly, a contemporaneous recording. After feeble denials in the immediacy, Pakistan has now claimed that only a dead crow was discovered on the Balakot hill and even that was not from a missile hit.
There is a lot going on akin to the Uri-Balakot routine in this episode as well. The sworn affidavit of the victim surfaced on a website devoted to liberal ideas (on its own admission). And that even before the sitting judges were made privy to it. Taking immediate notice, the Chief Justice did not shy away from calling for a special sitting, presided over by him, at the instance of the Addl Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. He sat in public court and expressed his pain and anguish at the allegations in which he detected a streak of conspiracy considering the slew of politically sensitive cases his Bench was slated to hear in the next few days. The two companion judges passed an order, not signed by the Chief Justice, leaving it to the responsible media conscience to carry the allegations or pull them down.
The Chief Justice then allowed law to take its course by the constitution of the probe panel. Justice NV Ramana recused himself to be replaced by Justice Indu Malhotra. In double quick time, the probe panel called the victim to depose. Her affidavit, widely in circulation (not a healthy norm which has become viral of late, where the public gets to read such affidavits well before the courts meant to hear the cause gets to) was taken on record. Her 'deposition' a.k.a. affidavit was queried by the probe panel.
Then, the media has played up the dispute raised by the 'victim' that she was not allowed the benefit of being assisted by her lawyer and therefore she was not feeling “confident enough” to depose in full. She staged a walk-out as it is reported that “proceedings carried on ex parte”. This sequence is concluded to be unjust.
The Chief Justice of India, in the eye of the storm, did not walk away from appearing before the panel comprising three of his junior colleagues. He was heard by the panel and records were made of the proceedings, we are told. Beyond the two of them, none seem to have been heard and the proceedings culminated, awaiting the report.
The probe panel conclusion is out now. The findings are kept under wraps. Copies of the report have been made available to the third senior most judge, Justice Arun Misra, who sat at the special sitting and a copy was also furnished to the 'accused' viz. Chief Justice of Justice.
Let's get it straight and clear. In the very nature of things, there cannot be full transparency and open hearing as is mandatory in cases of similar genre for common folks as you and me. It is neither permissible nor advisable nor mandated in the Indira Jaisingh case. All that needs to be seen is whether the Rule of Law as enshrined in the order of Supreme Court in the matter of probe of such unsavoury allegations was adhered to or not. It was. It is not denied even by the voluble dissenters led by the usual protesters.
“They' have made a song and dance of denial of basic principles of natural justice. That the Chief Justice ought not to have presided over the special sitting and aired his 'side' from public court. Then the probe panel ought to have allowed a lawyer to assist the 'victim'. Reports that Justices RF Nariman and DY Chandrachud met the probe panel seeking an 'air of transparency' have been denied. But the reports of Justice Chandrachurd's letter remains, of course. And then probe panel is accused of being “less than fair” in proceeding with the hearing ex parte, after the walk-out by the 'victim'. In effect, the detractors want “concrete proof” of the fair conduct of the proceedings. And they would like to have the final report of the probe panel too. “They' are therefore unwilling to accept that “justice was seen to be done, even if it was done”.
It is all so wonderful to read and listen. The embrace of liberal values in the matter of fairness and transparency always adds to the institutional integrity of judiciary. It seems so attractive. So much so that the 'not guilty' verdict returned by the probe panel is sought to be christened as “engineered or doctored”. Media is full of speculation, which does not add to the majesty of the institution or the office occupied by the highest dignitary on its pulpit.
Be you ever so high, the law is above you, is an age old adage which is pressed into service as well. But the operative word here is law. What is the law on a sensitive issue as this? The law is as practised by the Supreme Court. The probe panel sat and heard behind closed doors, not as if in secrecy. They are sitting judges and when We The People trust them day in and day with our lives and properties, should we not trust them on this occasion. The 'victim' appeared, it would seem on 3 days and then, as anticipated on social media, cried wolf. And when the Chief Justice appeared in person, there was no commendation. Thereafter, when the report is compiled but not made public, there is no realisation or acceptance that “it not meant to be made public”. It is in line with the law as it is.
Let the dissenters continue to dissent. That is their vocation and avocation. But let them realise that they are demeaning the very institution which ranks as the second most highly respected institution in the land, after, of course, our lads in the defence forces. We need to trust Balakot - for the institution deserves it. So must we trust the probe panel verdict - for the institution is far bigger than the individuals it is made of.
(The writer is practising advocate in the Madras high court)
