In what can be termed a candid admission, former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, said on Wednesday that it would have been better if he had not been a part of the Supreme Court bench which heard on a suo motu basis the case relating to allegations of sexual harassment made against him by a court staff.
“In hindsight, I should not have been a judge on the bench. It might have been better if I was not part of the bench. We all make mistakes. No harm in accepting it,” said Justice Gogoi at an event to release his autobiography titled 'Justice for the Judge – An Autobiography'.
The top court had courted controversy when it had on an urgent basis heard the matter regarding the allegations of sexual harassment made against Gogoi by a woman employee of the court posted in his office especially since the CJI was present on the bench. Critics had said that the presence of Gogoi on the bench amounted to the judge sitting on judgment upon himself.
Gogoi, who was speaking in a discussion following the book launch, said it happened because the reputation that he had built as a lawyer and judge for four and a half decades was being questioned. He said it was wrong to say that he sat in judgment upon himself as the order passed that day made no concessions to him.
An in-house special panel of judges had been set up to look into the allegations. On the criticism that the inquiry lacked transparency and did not involve an outside member, he said the in house process had been around for around two decades and was not toothless.
“Any Tom, Dick and Harry making a complaint does not get it investigated. It's only at the discretion of the full court. It's laid down by a judgment. In house proceeding is not toothless. If found guilty, the judge has to step down and the President approves impeachment,” he said.
Gogoi added that his successor, former CJI S.A. Bobde, who presided over the in-house committee, stood to gain the most if he had to step down.
“An additional registrar is part of internal complaints committee. The additional registrar would have decided in my favour in 24 hours. But I put my neck out and gave the noose to Justice Bobde. He would have been happy to hang me and get extra seven months in his tenure,” he said.
Gogoi also clarified that the employee who had made allegations against him was reinstated during his tenure and not during Bobde's tenure as is generally believed.
“The lady got reinstated during my tenure. She wrote a letter to Justice Bobde seeking appointment on humanitarian grounds. He asked me and I said 'deal with it'. Justice Bobde reinstated her with compassion. He reinstated two other employees,” the former CJI said.
Asked about the judgment in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid matter, he said he did not resurrect it. He said it was a responsibility his predecessor gave him and allotted a date. “I had two options – to run or to fight.”
On the criticism that while the Ayodhya matter was given precedence, he put human rights cases, especially those relating to revocation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir to the backburner, Gogoi said he had allocated the Kashmir case to an alternate bench and did not let the matter hibernate.
Regarding the controversy over his nomination to the Rajya Sabha, he said he has not taken a penny from the Rajya Sabha and not even the amount due to him to engage office help. He emphasised that he is one amongst only three of the 12 nominated members to not be aligned to any party. “I continue to maintain my independence thus maintaining my line to express my view for or against the government,” he said.
Talking in the context of discussion on the issue of interference by the executive into the functioning of the judiciary, he said he was given a special hotline to the prime minister, the home minister and the law minister when he took over as the CJI. But they threw it away, he said. “Executive interference is possible in hundred different ways. It depends upon the incumbent.”
He did reveal that the late Congress leader Tarun Gogoi, when he was the chief minister of Assam, had requested his mother to speak to him about a case in which his government had high stakes. “She did not tell me about it. She told me only after the judgment was passed,” he said.
About the judges' press conference of which he too was a part, he said the four judges had to call a press conference because they were unable to persuade the then CJI Dipak Misra about allocating PILs to benches of senior judges. "Hopefully it was the first and last time judges addressed a press conference," he said.
Asked about the demand to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, especially after the killing of villagers in Nagaland by armed forces, he said, “the demand to repeal it has been going on for the last 40 years. The incident in Nagaland is ugly and unfortunate. It was a mistake and an accident. Accidents are unfortunate. Stringent laws may be required but in times of accident, you feel the need for a repeal. Truth goes both ways.”
Earlier, talking about his book, he said, “I have taken decisions which did not adhere to institutional norms. Conversation around public offices was mostly based on speculations. If one is in public office it is difficult to understand the institutional interest such high office safeguards.”
He said he took great satisfaction in doing justice to his role in a constitutional institution. “Perhaps the narrative gives a closure to some issues and perhaps a beginning for something else. I will be happy if my collection of memories triggers conversations,” he said.
