In a three-page letter to his colleagues in the Supreme Court, Justice N.V. Ramana on Thursday recused himself from the Justice S.A. Bobde-led in-house inquiry committee examining allegations of sexual harassment levelled by a former employee of the court against the Chief Justice of India “in keeping with the highest standards of judicial propriety and wisdom”.
Justice Indu Malhotra has replaced him as the third member of the committee. Justice Indira Banerjee is the other member.
Justice Ramana’s recusal follows reservations expressed by the complainant woman about the judge’s inclusion in the committee. He categorically rejected the aspersions cast on him by the woman as baseless, unfounded and misconceived.
“My decision to recuse is only based on an intent to avoid any suspicion that this institution will not conduct itself in keeping with the highest standards of judicial propriety and wisdom. It is the extraordinary nature of the complaint, and the evolving circumstances and discourse that underly my decision to recuse and not the grounds cited by the complainant per se. Let my recusal be a clear message to the nation that there should be no fears about probity in our institution, and that we will not refrain from going to any extent to protect the trust reposed in us. That is, after all, our final source of moral strength,” Justice Ramana wrote in recusal letter to his fellow judges of the Supreme Court.
He said, “It is true that justice must not only be done, but also manifestly seem to be done. Let me also caution, at this stage, that it is also equally true that no one who approaches the Court should have the power to determine the forum and subvert the processes of justice. Let not my recusal in the instant matter be taken to mean, even in the slightest of measures, that we have transgressed either of these principles”.
Referring to the woman’s complaint that he had pre-judged her complaint in a speech given by him in Hyderabad, Justice Ramana said the topic of the speech was “Judicial Journey – The Road Ahead”. The topic was decided at least two weeks prior to the receipt of the woman’s complaint. He had spoken about personal attacks against members of the judiciary seeking to cast aspersions on their ability to render impartial judgments.
“ If anything, the implicit assumption of that portion of my speech was that our conduct as judges ought to be exemplary so as to protect the dignity of the judicial institution from these frequent attacks. Judges, therefore, ought not to be cowed down in upholding the dignity of the judiciary. The dignity of the judiciary, first and foremost, flows from the capacity of judges to render impartial justice. The fact that this assertion, on the need to protect the dignity of the judiciary, is now being used to allege bias is a sad reflection of the state of affairs,” Justice Ramana said.
On the second aspect of the woman’s complaint that he was a “close friend” and like a family member of the CJI, he said apex court judges attended official meetings at the residence office of the CJI. Judges meet each other regularly.
“In fact, we call ourselves a ‘family’ — to encapsulate that fraternity and collegiality,” Justice Ramana wrote.
“The Chief Justice of India is primus inter pares, who allots a variety of administrative duties and responsibilities to the Judges… My visits to the residence of Chief Justice of India cannot, therefore, suggest any proximity than what is absolutely normal under the circumstances. Thus, the apprehension expressed by the complainant in this regard is wholly misconceived,” he said.
