Ranjan Gogoi file photo.
Credit: Reuters photo
Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi made his maiden speech in the Parliament 40 months after he was nominated to the Rajya Sabha to support a bill to replace a contentious ordinance, amid a walkout by five women MPs of I.N.D.I.A parties.
The walkout came as Justice Gogoi, who was nominated to the Upper House in March 2020 soon after his retirement, was accused of sexually harassing a staffer while he was in office. The MPs who walked out were Jaya Bachchan (SP), Priyanka Chaturvedi (Shiv Sena-UBT), Vandana Chavan (NCP) and Sushmita Dev (Trinamool Congress), and and Kanimozhi NVN Somu.
"We walked out because of sexual harassment charges against him. It was a mark of protest against such individuals, however senior, not respecting women and having used their position of power to wipe off their sins," Chaturvedi told DH.
The fielding of Justice Gogoi was seen as an attempt by the government to gather more mass in the perception battle over the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, which the Opposition has alleged to be Constitutionally "regressive" as it takes away Delhi government's power over its bureaucracy.
During his 16-minute speech, Gogoi said the Parliament has power to legislate on the issue and there was no question of overreach. He said the Bill provides for a "diluted form of federalism" because Delhi is a Union Territory. "It is an asymmetrical federalism. Does it violate any other part of the Constitution?" he said.
He also said the Bill is perfectly legitimate and he fully supports the Bill. "If you want full fledged federalism (for Delhi), you can go for an amendment and make Delhi a full-fledged state. The most important thing is that Article 239 (AA) is not under challenge...In my view, the Bill is perfectly, legitimately valid," he said.
Agreeing with CPI(M) MP Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharjee's contention that what is permissible may not be right, he said MPs will have to vote according to their party diktat in a Parliamentary democracy and he does quarrel with that fact.
"To me, the Bill is correct. My conscience tells me to do something and I will do it. But if somebody disagrees, his conscience must be left there," he added.