Supreme Court cites a 2003 case to say it’s not liable to disclose report in CJI Ranjan Gogoi sexual harassment probe. ThePrint looks at details of the judgment.
Police had detained 55 protesters, but later released all of them. The security in and around the Supreme Court has been tightened to prevent further protests.
A newspaper report claimed Justices R.F. Nariman & D.Y. Chandrachud had asked panel not to continue proceedings ex parte, but SC says it’s ‘wholly incorrect’.
Real gains can be achieved when the government focuses its reforms upstream in better contract design, stronger capacity to monitor performance and maintain documentation.
In its first ever structured deal, Indian LPG companies are set to import almost 10% of their total needs from US. Trump has been pushing India to purchase more American energy.
Without a Congress revival, there can be no challenge to the BJP pan-nationally. Modi’s party is growing, and almost entirely at the cost of the Congress.
If the conduct of the judges from Karnataka had been found beyond reproach, the enquiry report ought to have been placed in the public domain. To satisfy all concerned, also the general public, which looks up to the judiciary, that it was a thorough, credible probe. In a sense, the RTI Act, although it marks a seminal shift in the government’s obligation to be transparent and candid, is not the major issue here. 2. A working woman has been – allegedly – sexually harassed at the workplace by a person who had overwhelming authority over her. She complains to 22 sitting apex court judges on affidavit, rendering herself liable to perjury proceedings if she is lying. Annexes a wealth of material, to facilitate a comprehensive probe. An enquiry is ordered, but not under the Vishakha guidelines, mandated by the SC itself. She walks out of the proceeding, complaining that she is not being treated with fairness. The Committee concludes that her complaint is not worth the paper on which it has been made. Does not consider her worthy enough even to be told, No, Madam, you made a false complaint, we have examined the matter thoroughly, here is a copy of our Report. We are separately proceeding against you for perjury and criminal defamation against the head of the judiciary.
If the conduct of the judges from Karnataka had been found beyond reproach, the enquiry report ought to have been placed in the public domain. To satisfy all concerned, also the general public, which looks up to the judiciary, that it was a thorough, credible probe. In a sense, the RTI Act, although it marks a seminal shift in the government’s obligation to be transparent and candid, is not the major issue here. 2. A working woman has been – allegedly – sexually harassed at the workplace by a person who had overwhelming authority over her. She complains to 22 sitting apex court judges on affidavit, rendering herself liable to perjury proceedings if she is lying. Annexes a wealth of material, to facilitate a comprehensive probe. An enquiry is ordered, but not under the Vishakha guidelines, mandated by the SC itself. She walks out of the proceeding, complaining that she is not being treated with fairness. The Committee concludes that her complaint is not worth the paper on which it has been made. Does not consider her worthy enough even to be told, No, Madam, you made a false complaint, we have examined the matter thoroughly, here is a copy of our Report. We are separately proceeding against you for perjury and criminal defamation against the head of the judiciary.