Expressing displeasure over the way the Supreme Court has conducted its probe in an alleged sexual harassment case, the Chairman of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission Justice A K Ganguly on Monday wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India saying that he is being punished for taking some harsh decisions against a few people.
Sticking to his stand that he has not harassed the intern girl, Ganguly said, “I have been distressed by some recent happenings. I am anguished that the SC under your Lordship did not address me correctly.”
In his eight-page long letter to the CJI, which he said was also being forwarded to President Pranab Mukherjee, he said, “First of all, I wish to make it clear that I never harassed nor did I make any unwelcome advances to any female intern. The very suggestion of it, to say the least, is out of tune with my personal conduct.”
Ganguly said that it was a constant media pressure on him that forced him to break his silence and said, “There is a concerted move to tarnish my image as I had the unfortunate duty of rendering certain judgments against powerful interests. I have made helpful contributions to many interns both male and female. To this date, I am treated with unbound respect and regard by them.’’ He went on to say that he sees “in the whole game a palpable design to malign me at the instance of interested quarters”.
Raising questions about the three-judge committee of the Supreme Court constituted to probe the allegations, he argued that since the girl intern was not on the rolls of the Supreme Court and he was a retired judge, the committee was “not required to be constituted”.
“No complaint was ever made before the Supreme Court or before your Lordship in any form by the intern at any time prior to the formation of the judges’ committee and presumably at the direction of the committee she gave her statement,” he said.
On the Chief Justice’s order to constitute a committee, Justice Ganguly said, “I do not know why I am singled out for such adverse discrimination by an administrative order sans jurisdiction.” He demanded an urgent inquiry by the Chief Justice to find out at whose instance the intern’s statements were leaked to the media from the Law Ministry even before the full court could consider it on December 5 or before the CJI to pass any order on it on the same day.
“I politely asked the committee to give me a copy to examine it. I was shattered to be curtly told that I will not be given a copy as it was confidential,” he said.
“Although I am denied a copy of the intern’s statement, I was shocked to find that the substantial portion of the contents of the statements of the intern were leaked out verbatim to a Bengali newspaper,” he said. Justice Ganguly said the ‘so-called statements’ of the intern were recorded behind his back.
“The intern only made a statement and on that there cannot be any administrative inquiry to find out truth of allegations ... The report of the committee, if I may humbly point out, has no legal status,” he said, adding that the report was not a ‘judgement, order or decree’.
Referring to Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising distributing copies of the intern’s affidavit, Ganguly sought to know whether it had the approval of the CJI or the members of the committee.
Responding to Ganguly’s statement, Jaising said she had taken the consent of the intern before making public excerpts of her affidavit.
“Yes, it was with the consent of the intern and what has been published in the media through her is the verbatim of the affidavit filed by her before the three-judge committee of the apex court,” Jaising said.
On his meeting with the intern at a Delhi hotel last year, Justice Ganguly said, “I clarify that there was a cordial meeting followed by dinner. Thereafter I saw the intern off in a car arranged on my request and made sure she reached her destination safely.”
Complaining against the conduct of the officials of the court, he said as soon as he entered he was surrounded by a posse of officers which was unbecoming of the institution and said, “I was treated as a person in captivity.”
Stating he took exception that notwithstanding the Full Court’s resolution on December 5 that complaints against retired judges were not entertainable by the court on administrative side, he alleged that it was under the CJI’s direction that it was put on the apex court’s website. Although he was pained by the unfolding of events, he said that in his career, both on and off the Bench, his conduct was above reproach.