Has the supreme Court of India shrugged its responsibility by not taking suo moto action against A.K Ganguly (retd. J) ?

The first thing I noticed about this sexual harassment at workplace case was that every national daily and news channel made it a front page news and revealed the name of the aggrieved ( I choose not to address the lady lawyer as a victim of SHW). The name of the culprit SC judge was nowhere to be found in the preliminary reports. If the media community was afraid that revealing the name of the judge prematurely would mean contempt of court then why did they not exercise similar restraint in revealing the name of the aggrieved lady lawyer?

Now, it is applaudable that the SC was prompt in constituting an inquiry committee in this particular case. Was this inquiry panel a shield for the perpetrator  by buying more time for him or by preventing a media trial? Let's not be cynical. It is also applaudable that the SC inquiry committee gave out its verdict irrespective of the fact that they found one of their own guilty.

Is it right to then question the integrity of SC inquiry committee by questioning why did they not take any further action against the perpetrator? One way of seeing the whole situation is that the SC paved the way for investigating authorities, aggrieved lady lawyer and other related institutions like the Central Government, Human Rights Commission of Bengal to take further appropriate action against the perpetrator. Can the police take suo moto action?

Is it ethically right for police or SC to take suo moto action  unless the aggrieved lady lawyer files a formal complaint? Yes, no one has tied the hands of state agencies and SC for that matter that they continue to sit on a report that pronounces a former SC judge guilty of sexually harassing a lady lawyer. He was in a fiduciary relationship with the junior advocate. When perpetrators like AK Ganguly,J. blemish the integrity of the legal community the SC panel could have probably undo some damage by passing further instructions.

However, can a panel that is constituted to inquire against a former judge pass any action against the person? Can it direct the police to take further action? No. No, it is only an inquiry committee. By what authority can an inquiry committee pass orders to state agencies or individuals? Its basic aim is to hold a preliminary inquiry. The SC could have taken suo moto action and called upon the perpetrator judge to face trial which it may do so in near future now that the inquiry committee has held him guilty. It is for the Chief Justice of India or any High court or Supreme court judge to take suo moto action and not for an inquiry committee to take action. The Inquiry committee has done its part.

It is now the choice of victim to prosecute the perpetrator by filing a complaint to the police or Magistrate or in this exceptional case to the Chief Justice of SC to punish the perpetrator. The criminal justice machinery has to be set in motion by either police or SC or the aggrieved lawyer.

However, even the Central Government has shrugged off its responsibility just like the members of Human Rights Commission of Bengal by not expelling such a tainted former judge from holding the position of Chairman in a Human Rights organisation. The entire legal community has boycotted against the tainted judge, however the Executive and Legislative members have not expelled such a person. In media channels people ask for his resignation, why give an honourable exit to a perpetrator? Why is he not expelled and why is his pension not halved as a punitive measure? How can someone who exploits his fiduciary position be let off easily?

It is difficult for a woman to carve a niche for herself especially in a legal profession. First, there is a risk of exploitation by her seniors.

Also, the male colleagues indulge in petty behavior by labeling every other lady lawyer as a woman without morals. Thirdly, there is no cohesion between legal community because women in the bar are not respected where due respect needs to be given. Fourthly, male colleagues need to be more gender sensitized in understanding needs of their lady colleagues.

It is also important to note here that SC itself does not have a panel, a permanent panel to look into any sexual harassment cases amongst members of bar and bench. How, ironical that the very same court that set the glorious precedent in Vishakha vs state of Rajasthan itself does not have a permanent body to address the issues of sexual harassment at workplace.