New Delhi: The woman employee of West Bengal Raj Bhavan, who has alleged sexual harassment charges against state governor C.V. Ananda Bose, has moved the Supreme Court, seeking action in her case.
Asking the top court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction in the case under Article 32, the woman said she filed her petition because she is left without any remedy due to the constitutional immunity granted to the Governor under the Constitution. Claiming such an immunity cannot be absolute, the woman has also asked the top court to frame guidelines and qualification to the extent of immunity enjoyed by the office of the Governor.
According to Article 361(2) of the Constitution, no criminal proceedings can be instituted or continued against the President, or Governor of a state, in any court, during their term of office. She wants SC to decide whether sexual harassment/molestation is a “part of discharging/performing official duty by the Governor”.
“This Honourable Court will have to decide whether sexual harassment and molestation form part of discharging or performing duties by the Governor, so as to grant him a blanket immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution, and whether a victim like the petitioner can be rendered remediless with the only option being to wait for the accused to demit his office, which delay will then be inexplainable during the trial, and render the entire procedure a mere lip service, without any justice to the victim herein,” the petition has stated.
As per the victim’s allegations, the Governor had called her on 24 April and 2 May under the false pretext of offering a better job, only to sexually harass her within the Raj Bhavan premises. She was called during working hours, she has stated.
Though an FIR was lodged against the officer on special duty (OSD), the Calcutta High Court had in May stayed the proceedings. The FIR accused the OSD of restraining and pressurising the victim from lodging the alleged sexual harassment complaint against the Governor.
The victim’s petition discloses that she is aggrieved due to the blanket immunity to criminally prosecute a governor and the fact that she was sexually harassed by someone occupying the post, but has no remedy under the law.
She said the blanket immunity in the Constitution cannot be understood to be absolute so as to enable the Governor to do acts which are illegal or which strike at the root of Part III of the Constitution that deal with fundamental rights of citizens.
The immunity, she added, cannot impair the police from conducting an investigation or even naming the perpetrator in the complaint who is specifically named in the complaint.
She said her written request to the Raj Bhawan, highlighting her grievance, resulted in her further humiliation. The authorities refused to take action and, rather, made mockery of her grievance by going to the media and terming her complaint as a political tool, without adhering to any safeguards for her self-respect.
The plea said nobody is above the law and under the garb of constitutional immunity, the Governor is by no means permitted to act “misappropriately” and “inflict gender violence” when every other citizen of the country is prohibited to do the same. Violence, in any form, impinges on the fundamental rights guaranteed to every individual, including the petitioner, under the Constitution.
To be branded as a liar and the governor’s act to give himself a clean chit is an unfettered exercise of power by the latter, which the victim said, is in violation of the constitutional scheme.
Giving reasons for filing her petition, the victim submitted, that Article 361 does not take away the power of the top court to examine the validity of the action in the given case and an interpretation should be drawn as to the immunity under the said Article with regard to criminal prosecution, as has been done with respect to civil immunity.
(Edited by Zinnia Ray Chaudhuri)