Protagonists of women’ rights have strongly discountenanced the disclosure of
the name of the intern concerned at many places in the operative portion of
three-judge Supreme Court Panel Report in the Justice Ashok Ganguly case. They seem to be highly indignant as to how such
a faux pas/ gaffe could have been allowed by the highest court of the land. However,
I feel that it is ripe time to put the record straight from the standpoint of
the law of the land. The Supreme Court inquiry panel arrived at a conclusion
that the statement of the intern, both written and oral, prima facie discloses
an act of unwelcome behavior (unwelcome verbal/non-verbal conduct of sexual
nature) by Mr. Justice (Retd) A.K. Ganguly with her and that said intern was
not an intern on the roll of the Supreme Court and that concerned judge had
already demitted office on account of superannuation on the date of incident.
Hence, it can be culled out that alleged act of grave
impropriety and misdemeanour i.e.sexual
harassment reportedly by Justice Ganguly does not come with in the purview of
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 and further section 16 whereof prohibits the disclosure of
the identity and addresses of not only of the aggrieved woman but also of respondent (person against whom aggrieved
woman makes a complaint) and contravention of this provision has been made
punishable under section 17 thereof.
Moreover, alleged act attracts
section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 inserted recently by the Criminal
Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. It is also brought out that section 228A of the IPC
also further amended by the Act of 2013 forbids the disclosure of identity of
the victim of offence of rapes in its various degrees as held punishable in various
sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376E of the IPC. Further, section 327 of the CrPC mandates that
inquiry into and trial of rape cases shall be conducted in camera. Thus, it can
be said that law of the land except in the cases of rape and sexual harassment
as envisaged by Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 does not
enjoin upon, in other cases of sexual crimes against women, to keep secrecy, more
so, in a case where said law intern hereself ventured out to bring to fore her
plight in the virtual world that has attracted lot of well-deserved attention
in the real world.
However, dithering shown by the Delhi police in registration
of FIR in the case inspite of a formal complaint by Ex Dean of Faculty of law
of Delhi University squarely goes against the recent constitution bench
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme court that mandates registration
of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by the informant or on
any information received other than by way of an informant.
Moreover, it is
no gainsaid to emphasize that sexual harassment results into violation of
fundamental rights of women to equality under articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution of India and her right to life and to live with dignity under
article 21 of the Constitution and right to practice any profession or to carry
on any occupation, trade or business which includes a right to a safe
environment free from sexual harassment.
Posts
