The Times of India today revealed further details of the sexual harassment allegations made by a former intern (“SJ”) of ex-Supreme Court Justice AK Ganguly.
Citing sources close to SJ, the TOI wrote that she had told the three-judge inquiry that Ganguly had “made advances towards her despite her clear disapproval, and asserted that she had evidence to back up her charge”.
The TOI described how in her account to the panel of three Supreme Court judges and subsequent affidavits, she alleged that Ganguly had repeatedly requested her to come to the central Delhi five-star hotel where he was staying in December 2012.
Ganguly was in Delhi as a “one-man committee” for the All India Football Federation (AIFF) in an inquiry into football violence during a Mohun Bagan and East Bengal match, wrote the paper.
SJ had accompanied him as a research assistant from Kolkata; Legally India understands that she had stayed at a hostel in Delhi during the assignment.
The TOI wrote that SJ “alleged that after AIFF officials left the [hotel] room, Justice Ganguly offered her wine while himself having a few glasses saying it was customary to drink wine on the eve of Christmas”:
In her affidavit, she gave a detailed account of how the retired judge made advances towards her despite her clear and vocal disapproval of his conduct. She alleged that after she rushed out of the hotel room, the retired judge followed her down to the lobby uttering apologies… The law graduate claimed that she had evidences to back her allegations.
After the apex court released his name last Friday, Ganguly denied that he had sexually harassed any interns and said he was a “victim of circumstance”. He also told The Hindu yesterday that he had not yet taken a decision on whether he would step down as chairman of the West Bengal Human Rights Commission (WBHRC).
SJ had said in an interview with Legally India on 11 November that she and other interns had been harassed by an unnamed former Supreme Court judge, which was partially corroborated by a second former intern of Ganguly’s on Facebook. The second intern also claimed that after berating Ganguly for his alleged sexual harassment of SJ, the judge had promised never to “misbehave with another lady” again.
SJ had deposed before a three-member judicial inquiry looking into the matter, which held seven meetings, and submitted three affidavits, according to a court official’s statement on Friday.
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Altamas Kabir and former solicitor general Soli Sorabjee have come out in public support of Ganguly, while West Bengal’s Trinamool Congress party officials, the BJP, senior lawyers and protests outside Ganguly’s office have made calls for him to step down from the WBHRC or for a criminal inquiry to start.
Comments
Has someone become a political puppet, used to settle old scores.
Sure, she has every right to feel uncomfortable and reject a proposal. But where's the allegation of actual harm? Even if we take every allegation as true, we've got nothing here besides an embarrassing moment.
He didn't employ this woman. He did not touch or restrain this woman. So what if he's old and retired? It's a free country and even the old have the right to make a pass.
She's of course free to reject his offer and mention it to whomever she wishes. But really, she's looking more and more like someone with an agenda. That agenda may simply be a function of her immaturity, where she can't differentiate between and actual harm and the kind of uncomfortable proposal that every adult - male or female - may face from time to time. Perhaps she thinks these urges should disappear with age or title.
But as it stands, it looks as if she got upset that Santa Claus offered her a drink and an opportunity to get warm by the fire. According to the published allegations she said "no" and exited and the accused accepted "no" and tried to smooth over the inevitable social embarrassment such an episode would cause for anyone.
Based on the allegations so far this is leagues away from the allegations in the Tejpal case. It is deeply troubling that such thin allegations can create such a furor.
If SJ doesn't proffer some more substantial information her claims will start to look like mere prudery and potentially motivated character assassination. Her vagueness is damaging the genuine need to broach these issues.
You'll also get benefits of your posts going up without prior moderation and notifications on responses. And you get to pick a suitably vicious looking display profile pic... Just sayin'... :)
And considering how TV news are happy to splash 'breaking' over whatever is currently on screen, our usage of the word shouldn't be too unusual, should it?
For example, when an event like Mumbai terror attacks happens, EVERY single news channel will be reporting the same news and they will all bear the tag "BREAKING". Surely, you don't think they all believe that to be their exclusive scoops??? But they will ALL report it using the "breaking" tag nonetheless cos the news is VERY IMPORTANT or VERY INTERESTING or DOWNRIGHT SENSATIONAL STUFF :-)
Btw, do you write to newspapers when they claim a scoop, but copy a story?
No wonder you are dazed and confused! Instead of acting wise and offering so much bunkum commentary, did you actually ever read her interview? She doesn't say it was merely a verbal pass, she said he physically restrained and molested her - "not physically injurious and violating nevertheless". It is enough to put people in jail for a VERY long time in a country like USA where sexual offences against women are taken seriously, I don't know about Indian laws. Nothing wrong in making a pass at a woman your grand daughter's age who has come to work for you as an intern? Living abroad, I hear India has been making progress, but didn't guess the extent of such progress till now!
SJ allegedly went to some sort of law school. Her allegations wouldn't qualify for issue-spotting in a properly drawn exam. There are uncomfortably vague facts, a lack of actionable language and a sense that her perception of the judge - older, a father figure - significantly coloured her reaction. It reads more like an update of "A Passage to India" than grounds for an complaint.
One doesn't diminish her discomfort, or discount a crime, if we acknowledge there can be a difference between sexual assault or harassment and a guy getting a little "handsy." One requires official action and the other is just creepy.
The Tehelka complainant made detailed factual assertions that provided adequate basis to believe a crime had been committed. SJ has been almost coy in doling out information. She should have the bravery of asserting sufficient facts. Being a crime victim is not a cause for shame. Her fuzziness is leaving her open to reasonable suspicion that her motives are not what she claims.
SJ is allegedly a lawyer. Let her speak like one, let her act like one, and let her step up like a professional rather than an offended school girl. She is not conducting herself in line with her professed purpose. And by that she is damaging the cause of everyone who cares about the safety and dignity of women.
Groping? Touching? Caressing? Or, as Tarun Tejpal put it, "fingertips"?! Sounds like you are used to being "handsy" and winking/smiling to get out of wherever you get stuck? Wowww.
A little Handsy is just creepy, sexual assault is not.. Wowwww again!
SJ has been coy becoz pervs like you are awaiting to derive voyeuristic joy out of her plight.
So much English. So little sense.
SJ allegedly went to some sort of law school. Her allegations wouldn't qualify for issue-spotting in a properly drawn exam. There are uncomfortably vague facts, a lack of actionable language and a sense that her perception of the judge - older, a father figure - significantly coloured her reaction. It reads more like an update of "A Passage to India" than grounds for an complaint.
One doesn't diminish her discomfort, or discount a crime, if we acknowledge there can be a difference between sexual assault or harassment and a guy getting a little "handsy." One requires official action and the other is just creepy. [/quote]
A little Handsy!!
There was obvious illegality there, prima facie - the whole deed was within the Court premises, the 'players' are identifiable And the history between/regarding the two is easily verifiable.
To my mind, that is in No way, a mere private act between two free souls.
Shri Justice Sathasivam, Your Honor, Lord, Glory, Bhagwan/Allah/Jesus - are you listening, or is AMS too high up with the first family?!!
IT has become fashionable to cry HE MOLESTED ME... and then SOAK IN THE MEDIA SUNSHINE...
Shameful! Disgusting!
IT has become fashionable to cry HE MOLESTED ME... and then SOAK IN THE MEDIA SUNSHINE...
Shameful! Disgusting![/quote]
Listen, at least attempt to hide the voyeur in you. Who are you to ask for or be provided any evidence. She must have submitted available material to SC committee and on that basis the committee has made its observations, which are now in public domain. Do you also want to see the camera footage inside the lift and only then be satisfied that the girl is 'not lying'?
Can you confirm this independently?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Inquiry-panel-finds-merit-in-law-graduates-accusation-against-Justice-A-K-Ganguly/articleshow/26870611.cms
Also quoted on Firstpost:
http://www.firstpost.com/india/inquiry-panel-finds-merit-in-charges-against-justice-ganguly-1267661.html
We've just run a short item. And more developments likely to happen later today on this story...