The former intern (“SJ”) who appeared before a Supreme Court judicial inquiry on Monday about the sexual harassment allegations against a former apex court judge, has said that she has presented “all details of the case” to the committee and asked the media to “stop speculating” on her confidential deposition.
Her statement, published under her name on the blog of the Journal of Indian Law and Society, read:
On the 12th of November 2013, the Chief Justice of India set up a three-member Committee to look into a matter of sexual harassment that I had faced by a former Supreme Court Judge.
As requested by the Committee, I appeared before them on the 18th of November. During the meeting, I presented all the details of the case to the Committee. I am confident that the Committee will follow all the different lines of enquiry, and will establish the truth of my statements.
The Committee has assured me complete confidentiality. Some media reports are violating the confidentiality of testimony given by the Committee. They have been distorting facts, and misreporting my statements. Such pernicious and mala fide reporting must cease immediately. I would like to request the media to stop speculating on my communications with the Committee, and continue to respect my privacy.
Click here for a summary of the case
A number of articles had been published in newspapers since Monday’s inquiry, claiming that SJ had declined to name the judge to the committee, that she did not want to pursue legal remedies and that she “failed to show up” for the inquiry yesterday.
None of the articles provided named sources for the claims and Legally India could not corroborate any of those claims independently.
‘Highly placed legal sources’
Earlier today the Mail Today ran a headline of “‘Harassed’ law intern fails to show up for case hearing”, as The Hindu published on today’s frontpage that “intern fails to show up again before panel”.
The Hindu:
The law intern who alleged sexual harassment by a retired Supreme Court judge failed to report before the court-appointed three-member panel for completing her deposition on Wednesday.
On Monday, Justices R.M. Lodha, H.L. Dattu and Ranjana Desai recorded her statement during a two-hour deposition. She requested the committee to maintain confidentiality of her testimony until the probe was over. Accordingly, she was asked to come again on Wednesday but she didn’t. It is not clear whether she sent any letter.
On Monday, she also told the committee that she was not interested in pursuing the matter legally, according to highly placed legal sources.
Mail Today added:
Court sources said that members of the panel assembled for the meeting and waited for nearly an hour and 45 minutes for the intern to arrive.
Ravindra Maithani, secretary general of the apex court, who is also the member secretary of the committee, did not respond to calls for details of the meeting.
The sources said no entry pass was issued in her name on Wednesday, suggesting she made no appearance before the committee.
On Tuesday, The Hindu and the Economic Times, respectively quoting unnamed “highly placed legal sources” and information “known” to the paper, reported that SJ “refused” to name the judge before the committee, and that she told the inquiry that “she did not wish to pursue legal remedies”. The ET wrote, relying on “sources close to the retired judge”:
Her desire not to press charges against the judge, whose identity ET has not disclosed for lack of independent verification, could potentially place the committee in a bind. The panel will now have no option but to drop the charges if she doesn't wish to press the charges, sources close to the retired judge said.
The committee consists of Justices RM Lodha, HL Dattu and Ranjana Desai.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
1) So all my fellow heterosexual male seniors in office, first and foremost tip – AVOID STRIKING ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR JUNIORS, KEEP IT STRICTLY PROFESSIONAL. NO ROMANTIC ADVANCES ( NO MATTER, WHETEHR IT IS NON SEXUAL) If you don’t want to risk your reputation, and career, just avoid it and nip it in the bud, but if you are genuinely attracted to someone, and think its worth taking the risk go ahead but keep in mind, even after 10 years if the woman alleges molestation and God forbid you don’t have any documented evidence to prove otherwise, you could be looking at jail, considering the stricter regime for women.
2) What if I am already having an affair with a woman, who is my junior? --- Well, as Kian suggested for women, the same goes for you – Record all your conversations, emails, her consent to your proposal, all smileys she sent you, little things which go on to prove her consent so that she will be deterred from taking a U turn on this consent. Keep these records forever, cos even after 10 years if there is an allegation, being an innocent man you should be able to produce those evidence to prove your innocence. And if you feel such “malicious” women don’t exist – Google “Madhur Bhandarkar – Preeti Jain case”. Unlike feminists I will not generalize and claim that WOMEN in general are like that, but let’s say very few of those may be baying for your blood and may wish to implicate you. But you never know the next woman you are hiring is part of “majority of women” or “few women”, so be safe.
Tips for those 10% males who work under females/bisexual males (According to Kian and feminist brigade)
Well harassment/force sexual favors by bisexual male/older women is not my figment of imagination, such cases happen regularly, I work in media/entertainment industry as a lawyer, and there are so many cases of male victimization happening on everyday basis
Bad news for you – No law supports you, cos even Vishakha judgment and consequent law only protects females, WE DON”T HAVE ANYTHING TO PROTECT YOU, on the contrary if your female boss alleges sexual assault on you, the burden is on you to prove that she was not the victim. Sorry bros, its your mistake that you are a minority of those men who work under such bosses, since law cannot help you either quit the job or “compromise”, cos this world (including feminists) will laugh at you for feeling “harassed”.
If you feel you have to 'do romance' with juniors in your office, know that you're running a risk. Or do it only if you know full well that you'll get married and live happily ever after. A lot of people do manage to hook up in work places, despite the risk, so it's not impossible.
And if you're insensitive enough not to be able to tell when your behaviour is creepy, inappropriate or unwanted, then it's probably best not to ever go there.
And don't complain that prima facie the law will look at any such relationship in the office and see an unequal position of power that prima facie colours any consent to a 'relationship 'that is given, because that's exactly what it usually is.
If you really really want to be a creep, go to a bar or a house party or something and hit on people there, where you don't have to worry about if they're only sleeping with you because you have the power to fire them.
You also seem to accept that the frequency of women getting harassed is far higher than the problem of males getting harassed by female or male bosses. No one is saying men don't deserve any protection, but let's fix the bigger problem first, no?
I really have such a hard time personally feeling sympathy for the 'man rights' brigade, which in one camp espouses the natural dominance of 'alpha males' (see previous thread somewhere), and on the other cries about how poor and victimised poor defenseless men are.
Look outside: 'man rights' might be one problem, but historically and currently, it is a smaller problem compared to what women have suffered and continue to suffer.
In most democracies women got the vote only last century, and I think in the vast majority of scenarios, women still have it worse off than men in most societies. Just because you can find a few examples where men, in your opinion, have it worse off, doesn't invalidate the need for more to be done to protect women from sexual violence in the workplace, in the street, in the home, etc.
Sure, it'd be nice if some of the laws were gender neutral, but I think it's intellectually dishonest bordering on deceitful to use that as an excuse to attack feminists, or to call yourself an anti-feminist.
About the workplace, honestly, how hard is it not trying to sleep or flirt with everything that moves? Is it such a huge sacrifice that 'anti-feminists' get so insecure about their human rights?
Respect others' human rights, men and women, and you won't have a problem with feminists or laws protecting women. If 1 time out of 1000 a man gets wrongfully accused of something, sure it's an injustice and it's regrettable and shouldn't happen, I agree, but it shouldn't be an excuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Unless you can actually provide some meaningful statistics on how many men have been victimised by women or by laws protecting women (even outside of India), I don't think this debate is going anywhere...
Obviously, you will have a hard time "sympathizing" with Man's rights brigade for simple reason, which you always use against men who oppose feminism. We don't understand a female victim's trauma. So obviously you and similar male feminists have been ever falsely accused of rape/molestation"? Do you understand, the trauma of NOT EVEN having any legal protection, if at all you get assaulted?? So if I as a man cannot understand the woman's trauma (in your words) then obviously, unless you have been falsely accused or fear a sexual assault then how can you be sensitized on that issue.
And Kian, it seems the modern day male feminists' knowledge of Man's Rights movement is quite shallow. People with those non sense "alpha male" theories are in no way connected to Men Human Rights Movement which seeks "real equality" but not at the cost of demonizing man and not by taking away their basic human rights. Please show me a men's humans right forum where such alpha male theorist has been a key member or a leader. And your feminist movements itself has so many different school of thoughts - We have "sex positive" feminists and others like Gloria Steinem who propogated that men demand sex due to patriarchy. Did you forget the whole 1st wave /second wave feminism?? ;) So why allege Men's right movement of being having divergent views??
I don't understand this "historical suffering" of women logic!! Historically even Blacks have suffered on account of whites, historically even Europeans colonized so many countries and plundered them of all their wealth, committed atrocities. So what?? Lets blame all the current generation of whites and ignore all their current problems and only focus on "blacks" so that they feel equal!! Or lets ask European colonies to pay back the wealth with interest, which they took from Asian-African colonies!! Sounds absurd?? Equally absurd is when you and your feminist friends make light of men's genuine issues on the grounds of "1 in a thousand man"!logic! My question is why should that ONE MAN suffer for no reason!! Why shouldn't the laws be gender neutral??
Ok, lets talk as lawyers now I say lets amend IPC definition of rape and insert it as an act committed by any person ( including man/woman/LGBT) against any person (man/woman/LGBT). Now please tell me how does it violate any woman's rights?? Similarly if we make Sexual harassment law gender neutral, how does it hinder in rectifying the "alleged historical wrongs"
And what historical wrongs, while u are harping on things like right to vote, many women already were privileged than most of the men anyways. By your logic, Queen Elizabeth must have suffered more than an average black or even poor white male, just cos she was a woman!! This historical wrong is a misnomer by feminists
perpetuated to demand more and more privileges for females ( that too only few privileged females).
Wow!! So u only "REGRET" if a man is wrongfully accused of something and will never demand justice for compensation or the punishment for false accuser even if the COURTS have found the same. But you will be baying for the man's blood even on the mere allegations by a woman!! These are exactly the reasons why Men's Rights Movements will continue to gain ground.
Talking of statistics (you can google it) even your own feminists acknowledge that "false rape accusations" are 2-8% of total rape charges. Now this is funniest part, Feminists don't count those statistics where the woman is UNABLE to prove the charges and keeps it separate from "FALSE ACCUSATIONS" and put the blame on "patriarch courts and men" as if they are responsible for women not being able to prove such charges. That no. comes to around staggering more than 60-70%. But the manipulative feminists start decrying that why CONVICTION RATES in rape cases are low!! So is it some kind of race?? or some kind of target, that if Judges do not send X no. of men to jail for rape they are not doing their job properly! So there you go whatever the failed cases against men are and add to that "Proved false accusations" I can very well argue a majority of cases which fail are "FALSE ACCUSATIONS"!
Talking of prison rapes (male to male), I am sure you are well aware how deep is the problem in US/European prisons. Still need more statistics??
Further anyone from your team can google "false rape society" which has documented all deliberate false rape accusations ( proved in court). The number is enough to give men legal protection from any false implication. May be you and your feminist friends want X no. of men's lives to be ruined before protecting them, but I am sorry ,for me every male and female is equal. And unlike u, I just don't "regret" a rape/molestation survivor, I demand strict penalty for the perpetrator provided the definition of rape/molestations is clear and due process of law is followed, and obviously my definition does not include "promise to marry", a failed love affair, an innocent occasional SMS, or an unintentional touch in a crowded bus.
Any by the way I understand its your forum, and you have been nice enough to allow me to post my views despite having you having strong feminist bias ( obviously you will call me an anti feminist bigot), but even I expect some statistics or some logical statements from you or your team to counter me, what you have been harping on is "HISTORICAL WRONGS", "INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST" etc. if you want number game, then please give me the nos. first rather than complaining on abstract "historical wrongs" and vague words like "intellectual dishonesty!!!
But lastly a BIG Thank you from my side to at least allow my freedom of expression!! I hope in all fairness you will do the same in future, on my part I will never indulge in any personal attacks, victim blaming and will try to be appreciative of other side.
Thanks :)
Can't go on too long right now, but I think that one should be free to believe in 'men's rights' and making the law gender neutral, etc., but one shouldn't use that to attack the entire feminist enterprise or call oneself an anti-feminist.
There is space to stand up for women's rights and for men's rights, both (i.e. human rights), don't automatically assume that one precludes the other.
Even the most hardened feminists will no doubt feel sympathy when a man is sexually assaulted, and will feel bad about a man being wrongly accused of and punished for any crime he didn't commit.
I think it's just that more choose to fight for women's rights these days, because it is a larger problem and there are numerically simply more sexually harassed, raped and assaulted women, than men. If you really want me to dig out statistics to back that claim up, I will try some time... :)
The above is a healthy debate and I appreciate the conundrum put forward by Feminist because I can relate to it.
I work in a law firm in Mumbai where, last year, a female colleague (Y) complained against a male senior colleague (X) alleging inter alia sexual harassment.
After some questioning it was found that the main reason for the animosity stemmed from the fact that X had pointed out some mistakes from some document that Y had drafted. During this incident, it was also put forward that Y was habituated to abusive junior lawyers and staff members and when they objected, she complained against them for "staring" at her.
After a ruckus, a few female colleagues (some working under X) came forward, it was found that she was lying. it was a good thing other female colleagues came forward to defend X otherwise there was a likely chance he might have lost (i) his job (ii) his two decades of reputation in the market.
But there was no action taken against her for putting such frivolous allegations against a person who was completely innocent. The Partners were alarmed by the incident because such a thing had never happened before and around 80% of the lawyers were female.
So is it fair that no action was taken against Y, the female colleague for spoiling the name of a good man? The bosses feel that firing her could cause the "incident" to get out and that it best be quietened down...
What precautions should X take? He is so freaked out so much that he leaves the cabin doors open at all times now when a female colleague or client is seated...
I totally agree with the points you made in this post and my heart goes out for the man in question. This whole problem stems from DEMONIZING of men and EXTREME INSENSITIVITY shown to men's (read proven innocent men's issues ) by feminist propoganda, which actually belittle this VERY HUGE CONCERN of human rights, as you see even Kian is harping enough on the point that such instances are far and few and he and his feminist friends merely "REGRET" it as if that regret will make the law gender neutral and save an innocent man. Unfortunately in todays times, the mainstream media is being hijacked by feminist voices, which is actually a matter of concern for innocent men, who live under constant fear of being manipulated, falsely accused and whole career/reputation being ruined.
Talking about solutions for this case - What the man in question is doing is right!! Let there be transparency in every conversation he undertakes professionally. If you have glass cabin, put the doors open, if at all you see any woman making advances towards you, or trying to manipulte you. Save SMSes, emails everything which proves that if at all any intimacy was there it was consensual. At this stage, you cant even punish the false accuser. Infact feminists have harmed the interests of more women, cos I can vouch many innocent employers (who just wnt business and are concerned about their reputation will stop hiring female juniors cos of such rotted women, who falsely accuse and manipulate. Specially the women who have a history of making hype in media will be seen as manipulative and probably be employed only by some feminist bigots. Whether this is right or not, I dont comment, but the fear is instilled in the minds of employers and as an unwritten policy, female lawyers ( specilly with such history will be turned back )
Talking about solutions in the long term - Stop expecting any sensitivity/support from feminists, they will cry HUMAN RIGHTS at the drop of hat, but I have never seen a feminist fighting for innocent man's rights nor we will see any. But yes, most of them will be baying for blood even for genuine innocent men. We do hve men's rights orgnization in India and abroad, unfortuntely they need guidance and media to raise their voices, as lawyers I think its our responsibilty to mobilise such innocent men, have a huge presence felt on social media/other media and let the government know our plight. Feminists have succeeded cos of constant demonizing of man, and standing united, till the time we men organize ourselves, in a democrtic manner, make our presence feel, can lobby like feminists,force the government to go for gender neutral laws, power to prosecute false accuser, its gonna be same. My friend, you and I can anytime be accused because of that unintentionl touch, that wrong sms sent or facebook id being hacked. Its sad but true.
Here's something to back that up from the US, from 10 seconds of googling, where only between 11 to 16% of sex harassment claims are by men (and where I assume the law is gender neutral)
www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment.cfm
I'm sure there's a lot more in-depth stuff out there.
Over to you - would love some stats or research on how many men are falsely accused of harassment or lose jobs vs how many women report fairly, how many don't ever report, how many get fired for gender reasons (or for not sleeping with a boss, etc), how many don't get promoted, etc. (From what I've read (and from common sense), the number of false complaints is very very small as against the number of actually justified complaints - it's actually not that easy for most people, culturally and psychologically, to make a complaint).
Also see if you can get some stats about women allegedly 'sleeping their way to the top' (there must surely be one or two, but judging purely by the miniscule numbers of female CEOs or other women at the top of all organisations in India and across the world, if a lot are trying to sleep their way to the top, they clearly aren't very good at it). Plus, if you're against women sleeping their way to the top, very strict sexual harassment laws should reduce the incidence of that happening. (Maybe ignore Bollywood in this case, however - that's a whole different story).
Some of such stats might be easier to find in the US than elsewhere, but please, let's stick with logic rather than polemic.
Finally, in respect of the incident described above, sure, that shouldn't happen (as all feminists would agree). But didn't everything end somewhat ok in this case for the guy, in that he's been fully exonerated? Didn't women (and possibly some feminists) jump to his defence about him being innocent? Is it such a huge infraction of his human rights that he now only has discussions with open doors now?
Sexual harassment laws weren't created out of thin air by feminists because they hate all men and want to put them down, or whatever you might believe. They exist because we have been living in a world were many workplaces are toxic towards women, and have traditionally been dominated by men.
We might not be in the mysoginistic Mad Men world of the 50s anymore, but we haven't come so very far yet either. Or would you actually prefer if we returned to the 50s?
Nonetheless its funny how your feminist bias makes light of the trauma, the above accused is going through but repeated romantic advances like in Ms Sood's case become TRAUMATIC and you start BAYING FOR THE BLOOD of the concerned POWERFUL lawyer.
And according to you a man is innocent only if women/feminists support him. In this case he was lucky that he had feminist support in office, but anti-feminists like me should be convicted just at the allegations stage,and even if conviction is result of false accusations. It will take me some time to dig our statistics and also how statistics are manipulated, how can you be sure that cases whch aren't proved and not termed "false accusations" were not actually false. The way you argue, that it is difficult for women to complain, I see another side of the coin and think it actually gives them lot of publicity, people's sympathy and thereby their careers take off (Irrespective ofthe fact whether the complaints are genuine or not). I will take this debate to another platforms including men's rights forums and feminists (chances are none of feminists will publish my views on account of their exposure, nonetheless I will try).
In that case, I will again agree that yes, it's very sad and wrong that 4 or 5, or even 500 men are wrongfully accused every year (and we really have no idea on the figures if you are not giving us any), but numerically all evidence I've seen currently points towards the protection of women being a more important problem to solve than protecting a few men who've recently been disadvantaged. And in any case, we are a long long way off men's problems being in the "MAJORITY", as you put spin it.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first