"You Don't Know The Level Of Anger Among Women Members Of The Bar,They Don't Feel Safe": Jaising Tells SC [Courtroom Exchange]

The three Judge Bench which is hearing the matter relating to the conspiracy theory advanced by Advocate Utsav Bains has resumed the hearing at 3pm. "Do you have your mobile?", asked Justice Arun Mishra as the bench perused another sealed cover handed over by Utsav Bains. "This is the private mobile. Others I have at my place", replied Bains. Seeking permission to file another affidavit, the advocate advanced, "Two of the conspirators have met and it is confirmed in a way. I was just waiting for this confirmation" As Attorney General K. K. Venugopal said that it is appropriate he file an affidavit in confirmation of all that he has said, Senior Counsel Indira Jaising sought to make a submission on her own behalf- "We are not privy to the contents of what he gave...('When the appropriate time comes, we will share. Right now, we will not share it with anybody', observed the bench)...We, women lawyers, ('I have other women with me', she added) are concerned with the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of this court. We want to participate in any inquiry to any extent that we are allowed as we have a common goal. In my 50 years at the bar, I have always tried to keep in mind the independence of the judiciary. We have a stake in maintaining this independence, whether against manipulation by corporate houses or sexual harassment at workplace. There is a need for a free and impartial Inquiry into the allegations of the former employee!" As she began to canvass the hearing convened urgently on Saturday, Justice Rohinton Nariman weighed in, "We are not hearing what has happened on Saturday. We are only on his (Bains's) affidavit and to see what we can do. We are Not even on the allegations. Don't back us into it" "Then we would like to address that issue before an appropriate bench. On Saturday, only her (the former Supreme Court official who leveled allegations of sexual harassment against the CJI) affidavit was there, not his. So we assumed that this bench would deal with that affidavit. The Issues must not to be mixed...", continued Ms. Jaising. "We can't even give you that opportunity. It is not for us to give you anything. We were only constituted for something", noted Justice Nariman. "In so many words, we are going to say that this inquiry is not in super-session of that (the inquiry into the employee's allegations) and will not prejudice that", assured Justice Mishra. "I am not asking for an enlargement but Your Lordships are shrinking it...The two inquiries must not prejudice each other. If it is said that she is being manipulated by corporate houses, it would preempt that inquiry", urged Ms. Jaising. Repeating that the three-judge bench is only concerned with the veracity of Bains's affidavit, Justice Mishra reflected passionately, "He says one Ajay came to meet him. He doesn't know who Ajay is, but he says he is offered bribe of Rs. 1.5 crores by Ajay to frame the CJI...he says that some disgruntled employees- Manav Sharma, who was removed by the CJI, along with other employees have ganged up. There is also a certain registry person. That committee (the in-house committee to inquire into the sexual harassment allegations) is not competent to look into this. ('We don't know under what provision of law that inquiry is. Let's leave that issue aside', said Ms. Jaising)...He (Bains) says there is a fixing game. It is a matter of concern for the whole institution, the fixing part alone! Fixing has no role to play in the system! We have to go to the roots of the matter! How can there be an allegation of fixing?! Who are these fixers? They have to be booked! They have no role to play in the country! We will inquire and inquire and inquire and take it to a logical conclusion... You (Ms. Jaising) are the champion of causes. You have the right to defend but not like this. You have to be independent and find out the truth at the clerical level. An advocate is saying that there are talks of fixing judges?! Should we close our eyes to it? The Country will lose faith in the institution!" "We will not tolerate this! If the affidavit is false, we will not tolerate that either! But an officer of the court has filed it. There is his affidavit and then there is the affidavit of the employee", continued the judge. "I am not comparing! And she is not my client and those are not my allegations! There are rumours around the country that Ms. Jaising is representing her without instructions. I am only here as a senior member of the bar. Please say so on the record", asserted Ms. Jaising. When she stated that she too is an officer of the court, the bench remarked, "Yes, you are. You also file (an affidavit)" Turning to the AG, Justice Mishra wanted to know if Bains could claim privilege under section 123 of the Evidence Act in respect of some communications- "Please tell us Whether any privilege can be claimed. My perception is that he can't...He is saying he cannot disclose some ...

"You Don't Know The Level Of Anger Among Women Members Of The Bar,They Don't Feel Safe": Jaising Tells SC [Courtroom Exchange]

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

MEHAL JAIN

"You Don't Know The Level Of Anger Among Women Members Of The Bar,They Don't Feel Safe": Jaising Tells SC [Courtroom Exchange]

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

MEHAL JAIN

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers