NEW DELHI: A Bank of the Supreme Court Headed by Chief Justice, SA Bobde, on Friday exposed a loosely guarded secret: that judges faced the highest number of false complaints and that it was a common “syndrome” to attack a person about to be appointed. SC judge, superior court or even as CJI.
The pent-up anguish arose when the court, which also included judges AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, was hearing a request from a Madhya Pradesh district judge, who through lead attorney R Balasubramanian complained that when he was in the area Consideration for the position of HC judge, he sought to tarnish his immaculate career with a false and frivolous complaint of sexual harassment.
Before notifying the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the CJI said: “We are aware of this syndrome in our system. Every day it happens. The moment someone is about to get something, suddenly some people remember things from 20 years ago and make complaints just to delay it. ”
Judge Bobde had headed a three-member committee of judges and rejected a sexual harassment complaint against the then CJI. Ranjan gogoi. The complaint was filed by a staff member a few months after Judge Gogoi was appointed CJI and was vigorously supported in the public domain by a group of individuals and advocates on social media and web portals.
Defending the district judge, Balasubramanian said: “If there is a sham of justice, this is the case.” The 1987 group’s MP Judicial Services officer faced the complaint of sexual harassment in 2018 and, apparently without any supporting evidence, the HC kept the “boiling pot” for two years by ordering multiple investigations before entrusting it to the Internal Committee on Gender Awareness Complaints (GSICC).
The GSICC started the proceedings after a delay of five months. It rejected the applicant’s repeated allegations that it was not interested in pursuing the matter. In April of last year, the committee gave its final report and said: “Basically, there is nothing available in the record to support that any of the charges made by the plaintiff against the defendant are made.” Surprisingly, even without any evidence, it recommended disciplinary proceedings against the district judge, Balasubramanian said.
“The successive inquiries that have thus far been carried out, in a period of more than two years, also when the complainant has categorically and repeatedly informed the GSICC that she does not want to proceed with the complaint and provide any evidence , smells of arbitrariness, prejudice and harassment of an honest judicial official, who is in the zone of consideration in the matter of his future professional progression. In fact, the petitioner was recently called to present a judicial record of his sentences indicating that his case may be under consideration. But at the same time, the sword of the disciplinary investigation has remained hanging over his head in a way unknown to the law, “said the district judge’s attorney.
.
