Until the Supreme Court’s decision in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, the designation process to confer the distinction of a senior advocate was mostly subjective, arbitrary, more often than not amounting to cherry-picking and surrounded by utter secrecy.

Sexual harassment allegations against CJI Gogoi:#NotInMyNamesays Indira Jaising

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]ENIOR advocate Indira Jaising has reacted strongly to Justice Bobde committee’s use of a case in her name to justify keeping the report of their findings on the complaint of sexual harassment against the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi under wraps.

The three-member in-house enquiry committee of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices  SA Bobde, Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra said yesterday they found no substance in the complaint of sexual harassment made by a former apex court staffer against CJI Gogoi.

Relying on Indira Jaising vs  Supreme Court of India and Anr  (2003) 5 SCC 494, the committee said their report “was not liable to be made public”.

In Indira Jaising,  a judgement that predates the Right to Information Act 2005, the court had held an enquiry ordered and the report made “to the Chief Justice of India being confidential and discreet is only for the purpose of his information and not for the purpose of disclosure to any other person.”

#NotInMyName This is a scandal.  Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India was also a case of sexual harassment by a sitting High Court of Karnataka. It is a pre-RTI case and is bad in law. Demand the disclosure of the findings of the enquiry committee in public interest,” Jaising said in a tweet soon after the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court released a note about the conclusion of the Justice Bobde committee enquiry.