TN Lawyers’ body seeks action against petitioner

Observing that Chief Justice Gogoi had set a ‘robust constitutional precedence’ by appearing before the committee whereas the complainant had walked out of the proceedings, TNAA president and co-chairman of the Bar Council of India S Prabakaran said,“The apex court had done everything to ensure that she got a fair hearing. But she voluntarily pulled out of the proceedings despite the bench telling her that in case she opted out, the issue would be decided based on the available materials ex parte.”

Also, noting that she was not satisfied with the proceedings was a clear affront to the highest court of the land, Prabhakaran added, “Here is an unadulterated act of contempt of court, as she had indulged in mudslinging and defamation, bordering on character assassination of the CJI and other judges who had heard the case, including two women judges of the court, besides the very dignity and majesty of the Supreme Court itself.”

However, the public perception seems to be different. The apparent non-application of the basic legal principle of giving fair opportunity has led to widespread criticism not only from the legal fraternity but also by the public.

Even the letter purportedly written by Justice DY Chandrachud noted that the credibility of the SC would suffer if the inquiry proceeded in the absence of the person who accused the CJI of sexual harassment. He also suggested that the woman should be provided with a lawyer to assist.

Also, as per the Vishakha guidelines and Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplaces Act, the panel should have included external members and should have permitted the complainant to have representation by a lawyer. Critics added that had the same process transpired in another department, the Supreme Court itself would have struck it down as illegal, unreasonable, against principles of natural justice and hence violative of rights of woman.