The question in the title admits to many answers. The purpose of this piece is not to provide an answer or many answers. It is to present before the readers a set of events reported in the media and let them make up their own minds about what the series of events means to them.
- An application was moved in the Rouse Avenue court, which is designated as a special court for the hearing of cases against MLAs and MPs, with a “prayer to monitor the investigation” in the matter of a complaint lodged against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, a Member of the Parliament, by a minor wrestler accusing him of sexual harassment.
- It was pointed out to the court that since the complaint is by a minor and therefore it falls under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), and the “designated” court for the hearing of POCSO cases was at Patiala House, the complaint should be heard at the Patiala House court and not at the Rouse Avenue court.
- This apparently became a very tricky and complicated issue because “there is no one court which deals with MLA/MP and POCSO matters”. It was to find a solution to this issue that the complaint was referred by the “court at Rouse Avenue to the High Court of Delhi to seek guidance in the matter because there is no one magistrate court that can deal with the POCSO as well as a case involving an MLA or an MP.”
- The matter was heard by the Delhi high court on May 30, 2023. The judge is reported to have said, “In view of the office note, I consider that the registrar general and principal secretary, government of NCT Delhi are required to file their response. Let a copy of the order be sent to the registrar general and the government of NCT of Delhi for filing their response.” The judge posted the matter for the next hearing on July 6, 2023.
The matter, as is well known, pertains to allegations of sexual harassment lodged by several women wrestlers against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh who, in addition to being a Member of Parliament, is also the president of the Wrestling Federation of India. This is the case in which the police seemed to be dragging their feet in registering FIRs and did that only after the Supreme Court of India ordered it.
The question that comes to mind is that with the registrar general of the high court being on the same premises as the courtroom and the principal secretary, Government of NCT also being in the same city, is five weeks an adequate period of time for their responses to be received by the court? Or is it too much or too little? And if it so happens that their responses are not received in time, would another date be given?
Did anyone say tarikh par tarikh?
There is a well-known saying in legal circles, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
I rest my case.
Jagdeep S. Chhokar is a concerned citizen.
