Jurist Blames Ganguly

LEGAL// Even as the merits of an intern's allegation of sexual harassment against retired Supreme Court judge A.K. Ganguly are being hotly debated across the country, one casualty of the controversy seems to be the West Bengal Human Rights Commission which Ganguly headed. Taking over in April 2012, Ganguly stepped down as WBHRC chief January 6, 2014, bowing to mounting pressure following the law intern’s allegations which became public a couple of months before Januray. With Ganguly’s resignation, the WBHRC was reduced from being a three-member to a single-member body, with another judicial member, Narayan Chandra Sil completing his term last November 1, 2013.

Former Director General of West Bengal Police Naparajit Mukherjee is now the only existing member, who joined the statutory body November 15, 2013, replacing ex state chief secretary Sourin Roy. Mukherjee’s appointment itself had led to a storm of protest. He was selected by a three-member panel comprising Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Assembly Speaker Biman Banerjee and Leader of Opposition Surjya Kanta Mishra, with the latter giving a dissenting note. Former Justice Ganguly also came under attack from noted jurist Harish Salve who charged him with “casting aspersions” by accusing the intern of acting at somebody’s behest. The senior advocate said Ganguly’s explanation over the intern’s charge and allegations against the three-member panel of the apex court judge, which prima facie held him guilty of “unwelcome behavbehaviour” towards the young lady, “spoils his case”. Salve, a former Solicitor General, who was responding to the allegations by Ganguly in his letter to the Chief Justice of India, P. Sathasivam, “regretted” that the retired judge’s explanation amount to undermining the Supreme Court.

Ganguly in his letter to the CJI, had said there was a “palpable design” to malign him as he had given judgements against “powerful quarters”. He also complained that the Supreme Court had not given him a proper hearing. Salve said, “Such an explanation has never been given. It is a matter of regret. There is a young lady who has made a complaint. The factual narrative is not now very far apart except in one vital area....,” he said.

“Three judges saw his demeanour when he gave his explanation and saw her demeanour too. They have thought prima facie there is much in what she is saying. He needs to deal with the allegation rather than cast aspersions on this young lady that she is acting at the behest of somebody. I think this explanation, if at all, spoils his case. It does not do any justice to him and I wish he had not offered this explanation. His allegations against the panel are equally unfortunate.”