Three judge bench of SC found ‘ring of truth’ in the affidavit of law intern against Justice Asoke Kumar Ganguli.Ganguli too strongly denied the allegation against him with judges concerned.Now whom would you believe-law intern or Ganguli? Unless a through
probe is done by an appropriate authority where Ganguly is given an opportunity to defend himself he can’t be called ‘guilty’. Till he’s proved guilty, why should he step down as the Chairperson of WBHRC as being demanded by political parties and many important personalities? Any body might bring allegation against any man of consequence but till the man is proved guilty he need not relinquish his position.In ganguli’s case SC should have made a through investigation itself to come to a logical conclusion.But instead of doing so it washed its hand of the matter after making a statement that is being interpreted in different ways.Who says there is no vested interest to dislodge Ganguli from his present position to settle old score?
Rabin Pal said:
ReplyDeleteThree senior judges' panel (which is a very tough nut to crack) are convinced that Justice Ganguly did misbehaved with a girl of his granddaughter's age. If that girl has filed a false affidavit, which is made under oath and if latter is found to be untrue, then that girl may be convicted to a prison term of upto three years. So, she being a lawyer herself, is unlikely to do so. Moreover Justice Ganguly avoided a face to face confrontation with the girl in front of the panel, just restricted himself to denial of the allegations. That girl ( by the way her name is Stella James and she is Kolkata based) chose her time of disclosed very cleverly, because if she would have disclosed during the time of our previous CJI Kabir, then Kabir being from the same Calcutta High Court Bar and a long time friend of Ganguli would have hushed up the matter. It is only due to the quick steps taken by the present CJI that the matter came to light. Allegation of sexual harassment against Ganguli is not new, although those did not become public, even when he was a Judge of Calcutta High Court.
I do appreciate your view point.Nevertheless I can’t budge from my own .As Ganguli contested the allegation against him with the three-judge bench, a through probe should have been done to prove him guilty instead of clamoring for his resignation. Tendering resignation might be construed upon as confession to guilt. In fact, SC is to blame for creating confusion rather than offering clarification in the matter. It just said there might be element of truth in the intern’s contention but it refused to move any further as it was beyond its jurisdiction. Nor did SC attach due weightage to Ganguli’s denial of allegation. Now the question is why SC took up the matter for prima facie investigation if it deems it not fit for investigating the matter at all.Was there any malicious intention arising out of professional jealousy or rivalry to put Ganguly on the dock? Is it intended to make public more suspicious and curious as well about Ganguli’s character? Again, to make public almost verbatim the contents of the female intern’s affidavit to the judges even with her necessary permission to pressurize Ganguli to resign reeks of poor taste and strategy as well.That apart, there’s every doubt, of course, if the affidavit which is the property of the court could be at all published. What’s unfortunate, there would have been no scope for speculation, had an enquiry been initiated in to the matter at the earliest opportunity to unearth the truth.
DeleteNever think I’ve the slightest intention to give Ganguly a clean chit.Nor do I tag him villain either so early.I want both Justice Ganguly and the female intern should get fair deal and the truth comes to light.