New Delhi:Supreme Court Justice NV Ramana, part of the three judges of the apex court's in-house committee appointed to examine the allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, on Thursday opted out following objections from the woman complainant.
Ramana's recusal comes after the complainant expressed reservations about his inclusion in the committee citing that he should drop out as he is a "close friend" and "like a family member" of Gogoi.
In his letter, Ramana highlighted that he was asked to be a part of the committee on the approval of Full Court.
"Firstly, I may have pre-judged the matter based on a selective extract of my speech on the occasion of Centenary Celebrations of the High Court Building at Hyderabad, and, secondly, I am a close friend of the Chief Justice of India and like a family member to him. These grounds, according to the complainant, raise fears that her affidavit and evidence will not receive an objective and fair hearing," he wrote.
Stating that he rejects the baseless and unfounded aspersions cast on his capacity to render impartial judgment in this matter, Raman wrote: "The grounds cited by the complainant ought not to be taken as evidence of a legitimate doubt for the following reasons: The first is the ground based on his speech on the occasion of Centenary Celebrations of the High Court Building at Hyderabad."
The topic of the speech was "Judicial Journey - The Road Ahead". It was decided at least two weeks prior to the receipt of the complaint in the instant matter.
"As a part of a broad analytical and factual discussion of the topic, which included discussions about the pendency of cases, use of technology and issues relating to the Bar, I also spoke 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 the speech was that conduct of judges ought to be exemplary so as to protect the dignity of the judicial institution from these frequent attacks," Justice Ramana states in his letter.
Judges, therefore, ought not to be cowed down in upholding the dignity of the judiciary. 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, states Ramana J.