While you have constituted a committee of
three judges to look into the allegation that a former judge of the Supreme
Court sexually harassed an intern, we have not been made aware of the terms of
reference to the committee.
As you may know, she may not be the only
one to be harassed. Transparency in the functioning of such committees must be
assured. Failure to do so has led to motivated rumours that the intern has not
named the judge in question. It has also done a great disservice to the
committee by giving rise to the suggestion that the judges threatened her to
withdraw from the case.
All this has led to vitiating the
atmosphere for a fair enquiry into her allegations. It is therefore
necessary that the Supreme Court as an institution and in full court take a
decision on the procedure to be adopted while dealing with such complaints or
enquiries. After all, there are two incumbent chief justices on this committee
and the procedure they follow, matters for how
they would approach the issue judicially when called upon to do so.
A full court decision would enhance the
credibility of the decision-making process and the profile of the court as an
institution which is interested in addressing the issue of sexual harassment at
the workplace not only of interns but also of lawyers and staff. An outside
member on the committee would remove the impression that a bias was in
operation when judging one of your own.
Junior women lawyers face sexual
harassment by senior lawyers and thanks to the conspiracy of silence around the
issue among peers, senior lawyers enjoy impunity. This issue needs to be dealt
with by treating such behaviour as an
interference with the course of justice and dealt with as contempt of court.
Senior lawyers who sexually harass women juniors or any lawyer at the bar must
be stripped of their seniority. The message must go that the institution does
not tolerate sexual harassment of women.
To be honest, the architecture of the
court is not women-friendly. The corridors are breeding places for sexual
harassment, the courtrooms too small to ensure the dignity of women who have to
navigate their way through a human wall of male lawyers. The atmosphere is sexualized.
Perhaps we need a new Supreme Court with spaces where we can interact with each
other as equal human beings, not as sexual beings.
Women have to face sexist remarks from
male lawyers and the patronizing attitudes of judges.Sexist remarks in
petitions, judgments and statements of judges on public platforms are not
considered with the seriousness they deserve by the court as an institution.
There is no standing committee on gender justice of judges, as there is in most
important constitutional courts around the world, to look at the use of sexist
language and practices or laws and judgments that need systemic elimination and
correction and not just in individual cases by the appeal process.
The suggested solution — not to take
women interns — is worse than the disease. The court must affirmatively
demonstrate equal opportunity for women to make progress in the profession by
guaranteeing them a safe working environment. Those who do not sexually harass
have nothing to fear from women interns and lawyers.
Unless the court as an institution rises
to the occasion and takes corrective action, it is in danger of losing its
moral legitimacy, a fate too terrible to imagine. It is, after all, the only
institution we have to seek justice in the true sense of the word.
As a first step, the report of the
committee of three judges must be made public as soon as possible so that the
impression is not created that the Supreme Court is shielding the brotherhood
of judges. After all, unless that is done, all judges will be suspect, those
who are gender sensitive and those who are not, and that is not in anyone’s
interest. We as women lawyers respect judges who are respectful of us but
disrespect judges who disrespect us and other women in words or action. It is
our constitutional duty, under Article 51A of the Constitution of India, to
renounce practices derogatory of women.
At this point of time, the Supreme Court
must play a leadership role. To remain silent is to be complicit.
( By Indira Jaising : The writer is Additional Solicitor General; the views expressed are her own )
No comments:
Post a Comment