The Economic Times | Mar 30, 2018, 11.47 PM IST .
The government’s stand on Supreme Court ‘not following’ Vishaka guidelines to inquire into alleged sexual harassment allegations against a Karnataka district and sessions judge, who is being considered for the high court, is based on the complainant’s charge that no inquiry or probe ever reached out to her for furnishing evidence.
“Till today I have not been called upon for inquiry or giving evidence about the complaint given against him (judge P Krishna Bhat) with sworn affidavit by any authority or by the Hon’ble Karnataka high court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,” she conveyed in her representations to both the President and prime minister last December.
In both these letters, accessed by ET, the victim has referred to her original complaint of June 3, 2016, to the chief justice of India, on which she claims to have heard nothing, except for a delayed postal acknowledgement dated December 14, 2016.
“It appears that he has managed to hush up the complaint by manipulating records,” she alleged.
In her 2016 original complaint to the CJI, the victim has narrated her alleged harassment ordeal as a junior to Bhat during his stint as district Judge of Belgaum. She has claimed that the judge made her visit his house at odd hours.
She has listed four incidents between February 2014 and October 2014 in her complaint.
February 2014: The complainant alleges that Bhat sent a message “to secure my presence at his home at about 10 pm, asking me to come alone”. On her refusal, she has claimed, that a male colleague was sent to persuade her. She went and was apparently not let off until midnight.
April 2014: The victim has alleged that the judge called her to his residence to apparently discuss a local complaint against her. She has claimed that she was made to stay until 2 am.
August 2014: The victim has alleged that the judge used the “pretext” of another complaint to call her to his residence at 10 pm and let her off at 2:30 am.
October 2014: The victim has claimed in her letter she again received a message to be at the judge’s residence at 10 pm. “As I was fed up with his attitude, I expressed my inability to meet him…thereafter, I told that I will meet him tomorrow in his office chamber.”
Further, the victim has claimed that the judge told her colleagues that he would reflect his annoyance in the annual assessment.
“Thereafter, I took appointment…I met him in his office chamber and sought apology and explained that I couldn’t go to his residence.” The government is of the view that the broad contents of this complaint, its nature and allegations ought to be examined in accordance with Vishaka guidelines by a sexual harassment committee headed by a woman judge.
This is at odds with the Supreme Court Collegium, which has recorded that it had assessed the complaint before recommending Bhat’s name.
The government is of the view that instead of discreet inquiries as carried out by the Karnataka high court chief justice, a proper inquiry should be carried out where the complainant too can get a hearing. Meanwhile, the matter has snowballed into another controversy over whether the executive is encroaching into the judiciary’s domain.
