Why Supreme Court Judge Indu Malhotra should recuse from the cases of Seema Sapra, General Electric Company whistle-blower and sexual harassment complainant against Raian Karanjawala and Soli Sorabjee who is being poisoned #MeToo #MeTooIndia #GE $GE

Why are Supreme Court Judges and Supreme Court lawyers turning a blind eye to Soli Sorabjee's sexual predatory past? 

J. Indu Malhotra who is now a Supreme Court Judge having been directly elevated from the Bar could not be unaware of Soli Sorabjee’s public reputation as a sexual predator. J. Indu Malhotra is now chairing the Supreme Court Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaint Committee and she gave a speech at an event of this Committee on International Women’s day. The fact remains that as a lawyer in 2014, J. Indu Malhotra was part of the Supreme Court Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaint Committee when my complaint against Sorabjee and Karanjawala was sent to it. I have described how the complaint was dealt with by this Committee in my Writ Petition 1027/2018 . The way the Committee dealt with my complaint and refused to consider it without even speaking to me is problematic, unlawful, and also against basic principles of natural justice. The response I received allegedly on behalf of this Committee (extracted below) was even incorrect factually and wrongly stated that I had “actually forwarded copy of a writ petition pending before the Delhi High Court”.

I am to inform you that your complaint was put before the Gender Sensitization Internal Complaint Committee of Supreme Court on 17th April, 2014 and their the Chairperson Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and the Member Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur, in consultation with other Members present, have observed that your complaint has actually forwarded copy of a writ petition pending before the Delhi High Court. The GSICC has, therefore, decided that since a competent court is already seized of the matter, it should not interfere with the said proceedings. Thus it was decided that it is not necessary to take cognizance of the said complaint. The GSICC, therefore, decided to file the said complaint. Accordingly, you are being informed.

J. Indu Malhotra was part of this Committee in 2014 and was party to this unlawful response to my complaint. So was J. Nageshwar Rao who has also been elevated to the Supreme Court Bench from the Bar and who was also a lawyer member of this Committee in 2014. J. Nageshwar Rao has subsequently recused from my cases in the Supreme Court.

J. Indu Malhotra stance on sexual harassment is troubling. In a contribution to a handbook on sexual harassment issued by the Supreme Court of India she wrote: “… it is also advisable that the workplaces offer counselling to the complainant, and the alleged perpetrator, to prevent escalation of disputes”. This statement of J. Indu Malhotra is problematic because of her focus on preventing escalation of disputes rather than redressing a woman’s complaint of sexual harassment. This euphemism of preventing escalation of disputes is often used to pressure, coerce or “counsel” the woman to settle or compromise her complaint in order to let off and protect the perpetrator.

In her recent speech, J. Indu Malhotra has stated the following about her experience on the Supreme Court’s sexual harassment committee.

I have been a member of the GSICC since its inception. The GSICC has resolved complaints of sexual harassment filed before it. In fact, just a couple of years ago, we had a case where a male lawyer threatened a woman member of the SCBA to give into his demands otherwise he would carry out an acid attack against her. As a member of the GSICC, we assisted the woman in obtaining police protection, helped her in filing a criminal complaint against the offender, and put up this information on the Supreme Court website. There have been several other instances where women lawyers have received lewd messages, and overtures from male colleagues, being stalked in the Supreme Court premises, and outside. At the same time, I would like to sound a note of caution. Apart from genuine complaints, we find that there are instances of complaints of sexual harassment being filed, even though the alleged victim and the offender may have been in a consensual relationship for some time. When the relationship turns sour, a complainant of sexual harassment is made. It is important that making of such complaints are avoided, so that the system does not lose its credibility. A provision has been incorporated in the 2013 Act to provide for punishment for false or malicious complaints under the Central Act. We have recently undertaken the exercise of updating the GSICC Regulations in 2019 to bring them in sync with the statute, and adapt it to the courts. The Regulations have been placed for approval by the Chief Justice of India, after which we will take steps for having them notified, and uploaded on the Supreme Court website. I would like to acknowledge my gratitude on behalf of the GSICC, to Mr. R. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate, Ms. Nisha Bachi, Senior Member of the Bar, and Mr. Santosh Krishnan, Advocate who have helped in the formulation of the amended regulations.

My questions are - why are the proceedings of the Supreme Court under The Gender Sensitisation & Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Regulations, 2013 secret? Where is the information about complaints received by this Committee and its response to those complaints published? What are these instances of complaints of sexual harassment being filed, even though the alleged victim and the offender may have been in a consensual relationship for some time? Why is J. Indu Malhotra so focused on highlighting alleged false sexual harassment complaints instead of on providing redress to victims? Is she helping build a narrative of false complaints? Is it helpful to threaten victims with punishment if they are unable to “prove” their complaints? Will such threats of punishment act as a deterrent to sexual harassment victims from making complaints as they will be fearful of not being able to “prove” their complaints (as sexual offences often take place in private and are dependent upon oral testimony)? And very pertinently, given that a sexual harassment and sexual assault case against Soli Sorabjee is pending unheard since 2013 and which J. Indu Malhotra is aware of, why is Soli Sorabjee’s former junior, close friend and associate Nisha Bagchi who has been used to target me part of this ongoing endeavor with J. Indu Malhotra of updating the GSICC Regulations in 2019 to “bring them in sync with the statute, and adapt it to the courts”. Ms Nisha Bagchi has been called a “girlfriend” of Mr Soli Sorabjee. She has been an enabler of his sexual predation of young women lawyers. And finally, why has this exercise of revising the regulations not been publicized and why has it been carried out in secret without broader consultation?

J. Indu Malhotra has been a close friend of Mr Arun Jaitley. Her nephew Vikas Mehta used to work in Mr Jaitley’s chambers. She is also on friendly terms with Raian Karanjawala, Mukul Rohatgi, Soli Sorabjee, Zia Mody, etc.

J. Indu Malhotra was representing the accused/ KPMG in the Mumbai KPMG sexual harassment case and had been engaged by AZB & partners, a firm headed by Soli Sorabjee’s daughter Zia Mody. The way this case was handled by AZB is extremely troubling and the misuse of due process and of the courts and of government agencies to protect the accused in this case and to destroy the victim has been documented in detail in two news stories at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/evidence-withheld-for-5-years-in-mumbai-sexual-harassment-trial/article4692717.ece and at https://www.livemint.com/Politics/v8RrlLY5QvAj4JtgRsMhRK/What-happens-when-women-complain-of-sexual-harassment.html

A shocking account of how the legal process was misused, subverted and sabotaged in the KPMG sexual harassment case to prevent an inquiry on merits into the sexual harassment complaint is narrated by the complainant's son in a blog titled "The #Metoo vs Due Process :  My story and my life as the child of the woman fighting a sexual harassment case for 11 years" at https://travestyjustice.blogspot.com/

In light of the conduct of J. Indu Malhotra in the KPMG sexual harassment case, it is quite strange that she now heads the Supreme Court sexual harassment committee and that while arguing the KPMG case all throughout, she was part of the Supreme Court sexual harassment Committee. 

J. Indu Malhotra was part of this targeting and silencing of the victim in the KPMG case. In 2014 when my complaint went before the Supreme Court sexual harassment committee of which she was a part, she had been engaged by Zia Mody's law firm (Soli Sorabjee’s daughter) in this case. J. Indu Malhotra ought to have recused from the Supreme Court sexual harassment committee when my complaint was before them. There is no indication that she did so.

J. Indu Malhotra knows me personally since around 1995 when I joined the Bar. In 2011, I had attempted to speak to her and she literally ran off in the Supreme Court corridor. Last year, I saw her in the Supreme Court Ladies Bar room and she again avoided speaking to me and was very rude and hostile when I addressed her. Despite being on the Supreme Court’s sexual harassment committee for several years and despite being aware of my sexual harassment complaint against Soli Sorabjee and Raian Karanjawala, J. Indu Malhotra (as a lawyer) never once offered me any kind of support (even verbal). This is despite her knowing about the harrowing targeting and victimization I was subjected to and despite her knowing about Soli Sorabjee’s reputation as a sex predator and despite her knowing me personally. 

I will therefore object to any involvement of J. Indu Malhotra with the hearing of my cases before the Supreme Court.