Mihira Sood has been litigating in Delhi for the past six years and is currently pursuing her LLM at Columbia Law School.
Last month, she wrote a column on how she - and many other young women -are exposed to sexual harassment in "one of India's most sexist professions."
This is her take on the statement of a young lawyer against Justice AK Ganguly as revealed by Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising. Justice Ganguly, a retired Supreme Court judge, has been indicted for sexual harassment by a panel of three sitting Supreme Court judges.
It is unfortunate that an allegation of sexual harassment by a woman, backed up by a Supreme Court indictment is not enough to make a person, a former judge no less, step aside from his position, nor is it enough to silence his equally powerful supporters. That it takes revealing the prurient details of the woman's affidavit to increase the pressure says a lot about us as a society.
When I read the details, I felt sickened, I did not need to know where he touched her in order to understand how a person can abuse their power. I did not need to know how she responded in order to understand that sexual advances towards a junior must be presumed to be an abuse of power. This is not because he is a man but because he is in a position of power over her such that her consent is vitiated. These are not radical presumptions that India has adopted, but they are in force world over, whether it is between employers and employees, teachers and students, or any such relationship.
But the Additional Solicitor General clearly understands how to deal with this mindset, and did what she knew would rock the boat harder. She has said she acted with the young woman's cooperation, and in the absence of any statement to the contrary there is no reason to disbelieve her.
Justice Ganguly's decision to brazen it out by questioning the ASG's actions do nothing to bolster his image as a person who is interested that justice be done and the truth come out, and for him to plaintively lament "What can I do? Who will listen to me?" is frankly bizarre. No publication in the country would ignore his statement if he would only speak, but he is neither seeking a trial to overturn the Court's indictment, nor is he responding to the specific allegations.
The argument that the affidavit should have remained confidential is not only a visibly desperate attempt to hide the truth, whatever that may be, but is also procedurally curious given that the inquiry in the matter is over. It is remarkable that someone can so publicly refuse to practice what they preach.
In a 2011 speech at the release of a book on Corruption and Human Rights in India, Justice Ganguly himself said "Anyone holding a public office cannot shy away from public scrutiny. The more attempt is made to take [the Prime Minister] out of the purview of the [Lokpal] bill, the entire effort will become more and more suspect. That is my view as a student of law." We concur Justice Ganguly, but why does that only apply to corruption cases?
The bogey of trial by media is now raised whenever a public figure is in the line of fire, and this needs a response. There is a distinction between media trials and media scrutiny, and yes, the media needs to show restraint when its reportage slants public perception in a way that can affect the judicial process. But for the media to stay silent would be giving a long rope to those in power to be able to commit the worst kinds of atrocities without fear of public censure, a basic element of democracy.
As the Supreme Court itself quoted with approval in the 1966 case of Naresh Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra "Where there is no publicity, there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and surest of all guards against improbity." This should apply not just to judges, but to anyone in a judicial or quasi-judicial position.
The dictum that justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done, was cited by Mr. Ganguly himself in the 2G case, saying that "Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice." This is not just in the interests of transparency of proceedings, but also to retain people's faith in the system.
I do not know what faith people will have in a Human Rights Commission that is chaired by someone who has been indicted for human rights violations himself, and whether or not Justice Ganguly cares about his own reputation, his lack of concern for the Commission's reputation is alarming.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this blog are the personal opinions of the author. NDTV is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this blog. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing on the blog do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.