Former Supreme Court Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, who is also chairman of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHRC), has quit as honorary professor at NUJS Kolkata, the alma mater of a former intern who accused him of sexual harassment.
Ganguly wrote, according to NDTV: “I voluntarily opt out, don't want to continue as a member of the guest facility and be a burden on NUJS.”
Yesterday the Union Government cabinet cleared the way for a presidential reference to remove Ganguly from his chairmanship of the WBHRC.
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Altamas Kabir was proposed to become an honorary professor at the college in early December.
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
This is a ridiculous comment - the allegations were upheld by a SC appointed committee.
Allegations were not 'upheld'. The committee only said that there was no reason to think it was a sham complaint on the face of it. They did not examine any evidence so the question of 'upheld' does not arise.
Sometimes there is a moral obligation too. Anthony Weiner, the US Senator, a case in point. Also, the SC judicial committee, had stated that AKG's conduct was a prima facie act of sexual harassment.
Also, there is no smoke without fire.
Thats a bad example because Anthony Wiener email people his own semi-porn photos, a fact which was easily proven and verifiable with electronic trails. A court trial would have been a mere formality. In Justice Ganguly's case the 'allegation' is not yet proven to any degree beyond the word of the intern. Theres a lot of difference.
'no smoke without fire' is at odds with the principle of presumption of innocence till proven guilty so another bad quote.
Absoultely.
Shouldn't there be a strong provision in law to protect the reputation of judges ? Criminal defamation against judges must be made doubly strong, cognizable and non bailable. Anybody addressing them with disrespect should also be pulled up. Sometimes even the family members are being hated instead of being respected. The law should protect them too.
As an after thought, I think it will be expedient (and fair, smooth, etc) if honourable legislators are also protected in a similar way. Reputation is important for every person, and all people are equal of course, but we have to start somewhere, isn't it better than not starting at all ?
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first