Legal experts split on filing police complaint
The panel was set up since the initial media reports indicated that the alleged offender could be a sitting Judge as well.
With the Supreme Court panel finding Justice retired A K Ganguly guilty of unwelcome conduct with reference to the sexual harassment allegations against him,a section of lawyers said the matter should have been referred to the police.
As per their own judgment in Lalita Kumaris case,the Supreme Court is obligated to refer the case to the police because the matter prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence. It pertains to an alleged attempt to outrage the modesty of a woman. They should now let the law take its own course, said senior advocate Anand Grover.
They should have taken a bold step instead of stopping way short. Closing the matter will send a wrong signal to society which was looking up to the judiciary to set an example. They should have referred the matter to the police, said Priya Hingorani,another advocate.
The police acts swiftly against Tarun Tejpal,but here it apparently awaits a decision of a court panel. And the panel ultimately chooses to do nothing concrete to serve the ends of justice, said Jyotika Kalra,who appears for the National Commission of Women.
However,Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising said it was the police,and not the panel,which had the primary role of getting a case registered. The police must register the FIR straightaway. They never had to wait for the panels nod. The information is already in the public domain. The panel has fulfilled its responsibility by giving prima facie findings, she said.
Senior advocates K T S Tulsi and C A Sundaram also supported the SC panels action,saying the primary onus was on the victim to come forth and get a case registered.
The panel was set up since the initial media reports indicated that the alleged offender could be a sitting Judge as well. But it was found that the accusations were against a retired Judge and the intern was also not officially attached to the court. Therefore,it became a matter between two adults and they should do whatever the law permits. The court has rightly caused no prejudice to anybody, Tulsi said.
Similarly,Sundaram said no suo motu action was required in this case and the lawyer should lodge a formal complaint if she wants to proceed in the case.
The complainant needs to come forward. The panel has done its job and if she has any grievances and wants to set criminal law into motion,she must approach the police now, he said.
Share
