Fear of conspiracy against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi cannot be denied: Supreme Court
Was accusing former CJI Justice Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment part of any conspiracy? Was it all done for bench fixing? The Supreme Court was investigating this case, the hearing of which has now been closed. In 2019, the Supreme Court had directed former Supreme Court Judge AK Patnaik to investigate the allegations of big conspiracy. Justice Patnaik has filed his report. The SC had said that this panel will not go into sexual harassment allegations against Justice Gogoi. The bench of three judges of the Supreme Court will hear it. In fact, lawyer Utsav Bains had alleged that a conspiracy was hatched to implicate CJI Justice Gogoi and all this was done by the corporate. On this, the Supreme Court started hearing with automatic cognizance.
What was said about the report
Justice AK Patnaik committee report said that sexual harassment allegations against former CJI Ranjan Gogoi could be filed in April 2019, it cannot be denied. The report said that this could be due to the tough stand taken by the CJI in the judicial and administrative side. In view of the report of Justice Patnaik Committee, the Supreme Court disposed of the case with suo motu cognizance. Taking suo motu cognizance, the Supreme Court formed a committee under the chairmanship of former Justice AK Patnaik. The Justice Patnaik Committee submitted its report to the court in a sealed envelope in October 2019.
Supreme Court closed hearing of the case
Justice Patnaik’s report acknowledges the existence of a conspiracy against the former CJI and cannot be dismissed, but the panel was unable to obtain various electronic records. The IB director said in his report that Justice Gogoi is seriously considering citizens in matters related to the National Register. The IB director’s report says that some people are unhappy with this decision. We are of the view that no true objective will be given. The hearing is closed in the case. The report should be kept in a seal cover. Two years have passed and electronic evidence is unlikely to be investigated in this situation.
