Delhi High Court asks Centre to clarify stand on Delhi Rent Act, 1995

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Delhi-HC-asks-Centre-to-clarify-stand-on-amended-Delhi-Rent-Act/articleshow/40942318.cms

SOLIDARITY RALLY FOR NORTH EAST STUDENTS by PRIYA MITTAL

About 700 students arrived in school buses along with their teaching staff at the National protest site Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on 20 August, 2014. These students appeared in school uniforms and both boys and girls were present in equal numbers. It was one of the most peaceful rally – no slogans; no speeches; and announcement on mike.

The rallyists – majority of them Sikhs – were carrying placards with the following messages in Hindi, English and Punjabi:

-         Let’s expand our mentality to stop racism

-         Is it a crime to look different

-         North Easterns Dear Brethern

-         Live and Let Live

The rally was led by the teachers; students carried a banner with a message “Solidarity Peace March, Guru Nanak Public School, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi”.

The rallyists marched along the length of Jantar Mantar in a disciplined manner. The Vice-Principal of the school, Ms. Anvinder Arora explained that the rally was organized in the wake of increasing acts of assaults on boys and girls from North-East studying in universities in Delhi. Prior to today’s rally the school had organized a poster competition in the school.

This was first such rally organized by Delhites in support of students from North East.

FULL COURT OF SUPREME COURT MUST APOLOGISE TO JUDGE, J-1

On 6^th of November, 2013 a law student, I-1 interning under a retired judge, J-1 of the Supreme Court of India (working in a statutory body) posted on a blog allegations that J-1 had sexually harassed her on 24^th of December, 2012. She had not named the judge. The issue was reported in a section of the print media on 12^th of November, 2013. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) had two options before him. Firstly to refer the case to the Complaints Committee to deal with the complaints related to sexual harassment in the Supreme Court in existence as per the guidelines and norms prescribed in Vishaka & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & others.  The second option was to refer the matter to an internal panel of judges on the assumption that a retired judge is still a judge of the Supreme Court and that only an internal panel of judges could enquire into the issue. The CJI chose the second option and set up a three judge fact finding committee to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The panel submitted its report to the CJI on 29 November, 2013. The full report has not been made public so far. However the operative portion of the report states inter alia “Further the Committee is of the considered view that the statement of the intern, both written and oral, prima facie discloses an act of unwelcome behavior.” The purpose of this enquiry appears to be political. Even as the three judge panel was conducting the enquiry, aggressive articulations were made baying for the accused judge’s blood. A State Chief Minister wrote to the President of India seeking appropriate action against the judge who was Chairman of a State Human Rights Commission. An Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) asked the Prime Minister of India to remove the judge. Even as this ASG was instrumental in getting I-1’s affidavit published in a section of the print media. Legal academicians of a National Law University (NLU) wanted the judge to be disassociated from the institute. Meanwhile the Union Cabinet gave a nod for the Presidential reference against the judge; consequently the judge resigned both from NLU as well as the State Human Rights Commission. There is a lesson to be learnt from the recent instance of a Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaints Committee (GSICC) getting an enquiry conducted against two university students accused of sexual harassment. It has specifically stated that the two male students are not being asked to resign from students’ body where they hold posts! Perhaps such words of wisdom should have emanated from the Judges’ panel which inquired into the case of J-1; and this should have been done right at the start of the inquiry.

In a classic flip-flop the Supreme Court on 5 December, 2013 decided by a full court that the representations made against the former judges of this court are not entertainable by the administration of the Supreme Court! This decision came in the backdrop of another complaint by an intern, I-2 alleging sexual harassment against another retired judge, J-2; this complaint dated 30 November, 2013 was addressed to the CJI.

In Vishaka & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & others decided on 13/08/1997 by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of the then CJI J.S. Verma, Sujata V. Manohar, B. N. Kirpal prescribed guidelines and norms for protection of women from sexual harassment at workplace. The judgement laid down that “these directions would be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field.”[i]

Both the judiciary and parliament failed to do the needful in the next sixteen years. It is evident that post 1997 and up to 2013 successive Chief Justices of India during these sixteen years are in contempt for not implementing the Vishakha guidelines which could have paved the way for sexual harassment cases within the precinct of the Supreme Court. Obviously all cases of sexual harassment within this period went unaddressed as Vishakha guidelines were not enforced. Even then, the Supreme Court on its own motion did not proceed to do the needful. The Court was geared into action after two public spirited women lawyers moved a writ petition and pursuant to the Supreme Court order dated 21.3.2013 in this petition the Complaints Committee to deal with the complaints related to sexual harassment was reconstituted at the Supreme Court to have eight members. True, a Complaints Committee already existed prior to this order but the Regulations pertaining to The Gender Sensitisation & Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013 [Supreme Court Regulations, 2013 for short] were only notified in the Official Gazette of India dated September 21 to September 27, 2013. With this mechanism finally in place the first option was open to the CJI to get the enquiry conducted against J-1 on allegation of I-1. But this option was not chosen. The CJI followed the second option by ordering an internal enquiry. But by 5^th of December, 2013 the full court decided not to entertain representations made against former judges. It also opined that as the concerned judge had already demitted office on the date of the incident, no further follow up action is required by the Supreme Court. Ostensibly the complaint of I-2 dated November 30, 2013 had been received in the Supreme Court by then. Several questions need to be addressed.

1.                           With in a span of less than four weeks two retired judges of the Supreme Court facing sexual harassment charges are being treated differently. What about the equality before the law clause as enshrined in the Indian Constitution?

2.                           If the 5^th December, 2013 decision of the full court is to be the order of the day then shouldn’t the full court in the same breath have declared the enquiry against J-1 to be null and void so that the two retired judges got equal treatment before law?

                              J-1 was forced to resign from his job of State Human Rights Commission; while J-2 continues to function in a statutory body.

3.                           Recently a girl student had brought accusations of sexual harassment against two colleagues in a reputed university. There is no reason to assume that a similar situation cannot happen in the courts. Consider a Tribunal constituted by two members one of whom is a retired judge of the Supreme Court and the other an executive member (non-judicial). Charges of sexual harassment against the two members get addressed differently – an internal enquiry by the Supreme Court judges against the retired Supreme Court judge in the Tribunal (as happened to J-1); and the executive member would be ostensibly covered under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 for short] which came into force on 9.12.2013. To avoid incongruity would it not be fair that both judges are enquired into under GSICC?

4.                           How would the charges of sexual harassment on CJI be tackled? Who would constitute the internal panel of judges in such a situation? Or is it being assumed that CJI is not prone to such indiscretions. (Accusations of sexual harassment have recently been leveled against a sitting judge of a High Court. Sitting judges of the Supreme Court including the CJI could be facing such accusations.) Should not the CJI and all sitting judges also be covered under GSICC?

5.                           Presently the Supreme Court selects judges through the collegium method – that is judges appoint judges. The same Court – in case of sexual harassment against a judge constitutes an internal panel (a sort of mini-collegium). Would this repose any faith in the minds of people that justice would be done to the victim?

6.                           Presently I-2 filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking inter alia, the setting up of a permanent mechanism in the Supreme Court to redress sexual harassment at the work place for women by all judges, retired or occupying office. On 15 January, 2014 a notice was issued to concerned parties. Till the case is decided how are retired and sitting judges of the Supreme Court to be dealt with in cases of sexual harassment? What if the case of I-2 takes years to decide?

7.                           J-2 continues to retain his job even as accusations were made against him because the High Court of Delhi granted injunction against the media from publishing defamatory allegations against him without stating that they were mere allegations. Ironically both the Supreme Court Regulations, 2013 and the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 have an inbuilt injunction against the name of the complainant, respondent and witnesses being made public; the only exception is if the complainant writes to the complaints committee under the aforementioned regulations/law that the name of the respondent can be made public. And even then it can be made public only if the complaints committee agrees to it. Besides it is true, of course, that once the complaints committee finalizes its report the name of the respondent – if found guilty – can then be made public. Is it fair that a witch hunt was allowed to be launched against J-1 in the media by politicians, academicians of a National Law University and by an Additional Solicitor General of India? And he was damned even before the Internal Enquiry panel submitted its report and was blackmailed into resigning from his post at the State Human Rights Commission. Is this ethical? It is all too well for the ASG to use a fig leaf of an excuse that the I-1 gave her permission to make the affidavit – which detailed the alleged incident of sexual harassment – public. But is this what a Government law officer expected to be doing? Shouldn’t she have resigned first before making the affidavit public? Had the J-1 enquiry been pursued under the Supreme Court Regulations, 2013 she would never have been able to do that. The ASG was aware of this as she chose to go public with the affidavit. It is a pathetic spectacle of a senior law officer of the Government throwing all caution to the wind and making a mockery of the rule of law. This law officer’s stance was political and in violation of all the laws in India.

8.                           Meanwhile media reports indicate that complainant Intern I-1 is not pursuing the FIR route. It is entirely her right to choose the FIR route or opt for another mechanism. The fact is that no FIR has been filed against J-1; no charge sheet framed and no court trial is on way. Is it not legally perfectly in order for J-1 to be immediately reinstated as the State Human Rights Commission and to be provided ample compensation for the extreme mental, social and psychological trauma caused to him?

The Supreme Court should convene a meeting of the full court and pass a resolution formally apologising to J-1. The Court should get the 5 December, 2013 notice removed from the web-site as it names J-1. There is a strong case for judges in all courts in India to face inquiry as per the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013  and if they are sitting Supreme Court judges then under the Supreme Court Regulations, 2013 whenever a charge of sexual harassment is brought against them at their work-place. The same should apply to Attorney-Generals of India, Solicitor Generals, Advocates and Court appointed Commissioners/ Amicus Curiae and Special Investigation Teams. There can be no constitutional immunity for the afore-mentioned in cases of sexual harassment. The victim can also opt to file an FIR under the Indian Penal Code which after the amendments in February, 2013 now makes sexual harassment a crime punishable by imprisonment of one to three years and/or with fine or both.[ii]

[By Dr. Paramjit Singh Sahni. He is the Secretary of Public Interest Litigation Watch Group. Email: pilwatchgroup@gmail.com]

---

[i] Vishakha has ceased to be the law of the land after The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and also the amendments to Indian Penal Code have come into force.

[ii] The identity of judges J-1 and J-2 and interns I-1 and I-2 are withheld as required under the law.

THE NATIONAL LAWYERS’ CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS (Press Conference at Press Club, New Delhi on 8 August, 2014)

THE NATIONAL LAWYERS’ CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY AND REFORMS 304, Hari Chambers, 3rd Floor, 54/68 SBS Marg, Near Lion Gate, Fort Mumbai- 400 023 E-Mail: aminrohini@gmail.com,  mathewsjnedumpara@gmail.com Cell # +91 98205 35428
Mathews J. Nedumpara President	Mrs. Rohini M. Amin Vice President       Mumbai	Ms. Sophia Pinto          Vice President Bangalore	K. Lingaraja Vice President Delhi	A. C. Philip Vice president, Cochin	Navaneetha Krishnan T General Secretary

PRESS RELEASE

            The National Peoples Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms and the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, first ever in the history of independent India, conducted a three-day campaign in New Delhi seeking –

a)                  video-recording and simultaneous telecast of proceedings of all Courts and Tribunals in the country and in particular of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which could be done with least effort and expenditure and in no time, which could readily obtain an end to the misbehaviour from the Bench, its excessive interruption, threatening lawyers and litigants and all sorts of abuse, not merely by the Judges, but by lawyers and litigants too who do not behave well.  If video-recording and its simultaneous telecast is introduced, the stampede for the lawyer who wears silk, for the litigant public believe that a lawyer designated as a Senior Advocate alone has some chance of being heard and others are treated as underdogs, except for a couple of noble Judges, will come to an end.  There will thereafter be no lobbying by lawyers with 20/25 years of standing at the bar for designation as a Senior Advocate, which requires majority of votes of the Judges of the High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be;

b)                  Open selection of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts by advertisement of the vacancies, receipt of applications, scrutiny thereof and selection in a most open and transparent manner, so that the vast majority of eligible lawyers will have a fair opportunity to be considered, except of the current cabal system where kith and kin of Judges and senior lawyers alone are considered;

c)                  Restoration of freedom of speech by scrapping the most abused offence called scandalizing the Court;

d)                  Introduction of an effective mechanism for dealing with complaints of corruption, misbehaviour, incompetence etc., against Judges of the higher judiciary in which lay people have a participation, instead of whatever is the mechanism being reduced to a body of Judges and lawyers;

e)                  Transfer of Judges of the High Courts, re-introduction of the system where 1/3^rd of the Judges of a High Court are from outside the State; even 1/3^rd is not enough, it ought to be at least ½;

f)                   Bringing an end to the uncle Judges syndrome; make it mandatory that a Judge, who has his son or daughter or immediate relative practising in the High Court where he functions, is liable to be transferred to another High Court;

g)                  Repeal the concept of absolute impunity to Judges, and even for lawyers, and the impunity be confined to where they act bona fide;

h)                  Enact a law to make it expressly clear that Judges like other citizens are liable for prosecution and that a First Information Report is liable to be registered when Judges commit a cognizable offence which has nothing to do with discharge of their judicial function, like where they commit an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act or outraging the modesty of a woman or indulging in rave party, without least intending to suggest that Judges indulge in such offences.

i)                    Abolition of Tribunals and revitalizing and strengthening the institution of Civil Courts;

j)                    A common dress code for all lawyers and abolition of the concept of designation of lawyers as Senior Advocates;

k)                  Declaration of assets by Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts; etc.,

to bring an end to a ridicule of the law that no FIR can be lodged against Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, creating a special class of privileged citizens to whom criminal law is not applicable. President of the National Peoples Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara, President of the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms, and ordinary lay people coming from different parts of the country, such as, Kerala, Tamilnadu, Pune, Mumbai, Gujarat, Assam etc., met the Hon'ble Law Minister who was kind enough to agree with the campaigners almost on all issues.  The Law Minister made it clear that the demands of the campaigners are acceptable in principle and that all that he requires is some time to make the said demands to be implemented, some which may require a legislation.  Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara and Mrs. Rohini Amin, President and Vice-President of the President of the National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms were given audience by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, who too was very receptive to the campaigners and their ideas and said that video-recording cannot be put to practice immediately, but sound-recording could be thought of for which he needs to consult other Judges, the Bar etc.  The Hon'ble Chief Justice also agreed that there is a need for greater diversity in the appointment of Judges.

*******