Login With Google
The Supreme Court committee and institutional bias
Why in news?
- The Supreme Court on Tuesday constituted a committee comprising Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Indira Banerjee.
- The constitution of the committee raises very serious and profound questions over institutional bias that need to be debated and addressed at the outset.
More in news
- SC’s view regarding curbing sexual harassment of women at workplace:(1) In the absence of any domestic law occupying a field providing for measures to check the evils of sexual harassment at all workplaces.(2) Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 32 to lay down a new law to fill the vacuum.(3) In so doing, the judges laid emphasis on Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.(4) They emphasized guarantee of gender equality and right to work with human dignity amongst others.(5) The judges relied upon the Beijing Declaration of 1995 where the Chief Justices of Asia and Pacific had inter-alia declared that amongst the objectives and functions of the judiciary is to ensure that all persons are able to live securely under the Rule of Law.
Concerns in implementing guidelines
- Parliament enacted the law in 2013. It is an Act to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace.
- Section 3 expressly declares no woman shall be subjected to sexual harassment at any workplace.
- Sections 4 and 7 are relevant and speak about constitution of Internal Complaints Committee and Local Complaints Committee.
- It requires the Chairperson to be a woman employed at a senior level at the workplace or from amongst eminent women from the field of social work and committed to the cause of women.
- Supreme Court (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Guidelines 2013 have laudatory objectives in preamble but appear to exclude the court staff from their umbrella and protection.
- The Supreme Court has failed to implement Visakha judgment in its own precincts and Parliament has failed to apply the Act of 2013 to court premises across the country.
- Judges have kept themselves out of the ambit of the Act and the Regulations, at least in the Supreme Court.
- This raises very serious questions as to the rationale and justification of so doing.
- Troubling statements:(1) Statement issued by the Secretary-General of the Court terming her allegations to be false and expressing solidarity with the Chief Justice.(2) Now the question will arise Where then is the possibility for her to get fairness in the enquiry?(3) Employees of the Court are only witness who could possibly support her.(4) It is inconceivable that they can give independent evidence with this background.
Natural justice must prevail
- Natural Justice or Divine Justice is a great humanizing principle intended to empower law with fairness to secure justice and prevent miscarriage of justice.
- First principle of natural justice is the rule against bias and is based on two salutary principles:(1) Justice should not only be done, but manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.(2) Judges, like Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion.
- Institutional bias is against natural justice.
Source
The hindu