The president of the Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA), Yatin Oza, has, in an open letter, criticised the conduct of Assam-born Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi in handling the recent allegations of sexual harassment made against him.
He started off by asking the income returns of CJI Gogoi’s son and son-in-law, “which run into billions”.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Oza put this query in the backdrop of a statement made by Gogoi in open court that he was being attacked with false sexual harassment allegations as he was not “succumbing to monetary influence”. “A bank balance of
Rs 6,80,000 is all I have. They cannot catch me on money. So they have brought this up.”
Oza, however, goes on to state, “The return [of Gogoi’s son and son-in-law] would not reflect even 10 per cent of income if Your Lordships were not a Judge of the Supreme Court. I don’t think in the whole country, any Advocate would have reflected this figure of income in their return with such less number of years in practice. Not one, including any top-notch respected Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court as on date.”
Also Read: Lawyers seek full court to hear allegations against CJI Ranjan Gogoi
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Commenting on the ‘Special Bench Sitting’ following the publication of the reports regarding the alleged sexual assault, Oza said, “It clearly and unequivocally gave an impression to a man with prudence that you [Gogoi] abused the chair that you hold”.
He has argued that the impression given was the “pious chair of the Chief Justice” was utilised to prove innocence in the case through the media.
Oza has also posed queries on factual aspects of the sexual harassment allegations. Inter alia, he has queried how the former Supreme Court staffer who has accused CJI Gogoi of sexual misconduct was present at the occasion of his oath-taking ceremony on a personal invitation, rather than as an officer of the court. Other concerns raised include how the lady officer’s brother was allowed back door entry into Supreme Court employment.
Further, Oza also opines that the lady officer’s dismissal from service was disproportionate to her cited delinquency. He argues that it has already been laid down that the “economic death penalty i.e.., dismissal”, and allied penalties can only be meted out to a delinquent officer for proved charges of moral turpitude.On the other hand, the lady officer, in this case, has been dismissed citing absenteeism.
Also Read: No mechanism in place to probe plaints against CJI Ranjan Gogoi: Experts
In this context, Oza has lamented, “It is the misfortune of this country that every time when serious allegations are made against the people holding the high of highest constitutional office, the females/victims are always looked at with contemptuous eyes and the law which otherwise has been laid down to deal with this type of cases is being a complete go by.”
Hours following the publication of the reports regarding the alleged sexual assault, Oza has stated that it “clearly and unequivocally gave an impression to a man with prudence that you [Gogoi] abused the chair that you hold”.
He has argued that the impression given was the “pious chair of the Chief Justice” was utilised to prove innocence in the case through the media.
Oza has also posed queries on factual aspects of the sexual harassment allegations. Inter alia, he has queried how the lady Court officer who has accused CJI Gogoi of the same was present at the occasion of his oath-taking ceremony on a personal invitation, rather than as an officer of the Court. Other concerns raised include how the lady officer’s brother was allowed back door entry into Supreme Court employment.
Further, Oza also opines that the lady officer’s dismissal from service was disproportionate to her cited delinquency. He argues that it has already been laid down that the “economic death penalty i.e. dismissal”, and allied penalties can only be meted out to a delinquent officer for proved charges of moral turpitude. On the other hand, the lady officer, in this case, has been dismissed citing absenteeism.
In this context, Oza has lamented, “It is the misfortune of this country that every time when serious allegations are made against the people holding the high of highest constitutional office, the females/victims are always looked at with contemptuous eyes and the law which otherwise has been laid down to deal with this type of cases is being given a complete go by.”