Enquiry On Sexual Harassment Allegations Against CJI Should Not Be Proceeded In Complainant's Absence, PUDR, Activists [Read Full Statements]
People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) has demanded that the enquiry on sexual harassment allegations against Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi should not be proceeded in the absence of the Complainant. In a press statement PUDR also suggested that the inquiry into the allegations levelled by the Ex-Supreme Courtstaffer should be conducted by a special committee comprising and headed by...
People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) has demanded that the enquiry on sexual harassment allegations against Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi should not be proceeded in the absence of the Complainant.
In a press statement PUDR also suggested that the inquiry into the allegations levelled by the Ex-Supreme Courtstaffer should be conducted by a special committee comprising and headed by external members who are not sitting Supreme Court judges.
The inquiry should be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court's own guidelines in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), and the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act (2013).
The complainant's requests for video-recording of proceedings, representation by a lawyer etc. should be granted.
Appropriate action should be taken against functionaries of the Court and the Delhi Police based on the findings of an impartial inquiry.
Supreme Court regulations should be suitably amended to fill existing gaps; including the exclusion from the 2013 Regulations of employees governed by the Court's service rules, and the lack of an 'In-House Procedure' for complaints made against the Chief Justice of India
Lawyers And Activists Support Complainant's Decision to Withdraw from Enquiry
In another Statement, Civil society groups, lawyers, activists and academics have expressed their solidarity with the woman who alleged sexual harassment by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, and supported her decision to withdraw from the in-house panel looking into the allegations.
We reiterate that the constitution of the three judge Committee is inherently flawed, as the Chief Justice is senior to the three judges hearing the complaint and head of the Institution. The Committee also does not adhere to the spirit of either the 2013 Act or the Vishaka Guidelines, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in 1997. The absence of an external member, whose role is to ensure that there is no undue pressure or influence on either the complainant or the witnesses during the enquiry, casts a shadow on the intent behind and the purpose of setting up this Committee itself.
The procedure established by law has not only to be followed by those subordinates to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but by the Supreme Court itself. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India would have no meaning otherwise.
If the highest judicial authority does not follow its own procedures and stand up in support of the less powerful, it will send a message of disquiet to all those keeping faith in the system.
In order to maintain this faith and to stand with the less powerful, the complainant in this case, we implore the present Committee to immediately stop hearing this Complaint.
We once again demand of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:
A Special Enquiry Committee consisting of credible individuals be constituted to conduct a thorough enquiry at the earliest and create an atmosphere of transparency and confidence for the complainant to depose.
The Special Enquiry Committee should follow the norms of the IC and the principles of natural justice and accordingly conduct its enquiry.
The Chief Justice of India should refrain from transacting official duties and responsibilities until the completion of the enquiry.
The complainant must be allowed to be represented by a lawyer/support person of her choice.
You can read the Full Text of PUDR Press Statement Here
Press Statement
02 May 2019
PUDR condemns sham inquiry into charges against CJI'
On May 1st, 2019, the three-judge inquiry into charges of sexual harassment against the Chief Justice of India decided to proceed without the complainant, with the CJI appearing before it. The complainant had withdrawn from the inquiry the previous day, describing the shocking course of action adopted by the inquiry committee, in complete violation of basic tenets of natural justice and the Supreme Court's own jurisprudence on sexual harassment. PUDR strongly condemns the committee's decision to proceed in her absence and demands that an impartial inquiry be conducted by a fresh committee comprising external members. Given the Court's brazenly self-serving responses to these charges even outside the committee, there is little doubt that the complainant is right in fearing she will not be given a fair hearing.
There is no clear procedure for the present case, since the Court's 'In-House Procedure' does not provide a process for complaints against the CJI and its 2013 Regulations on the Internal Complaints Committee for sexual harassment do not apply to the current complainant. The very fact that such a loophole exists is already condemnable. But for the Court to take advantage of this ambiguity by evolving a farcical procedure is an even more shameful abuse of power, severely detrimental to public trust in the institution.
The judges did not even inform the complainant what the committee procedure would be, merely telling her that it would not follow any laid-down procedure but be entirely 'informal'. In a 2014 judgement (ADJ 'X' v. High Court of MP), the SC itself had stressed that, in cases of sexual harassment, its 'In-House Procedure' can be modified in "the sc and circumstances of a given case, to ensure that the investigative process affords safeguards, against favouritism, prejudice or bias." But the changes to procedure in the present case, far from trying to afford better safeguards, dismantle the most universal ones. In exercising their discretion over this 'informal' procedure, the judges chose to deny the complainant a lawyer, though her adversary is the highest-ranking legal authority in the country. When the complainant informed them that she had a hearing impairment and could not hear how they were dictating a record of her statements, their response was to deny her a copy of her own statements. Such modifications, coming from judges who have spent decades engaging with the basic requirements of a fair hearing across areas of law, can only indicate a bias against the complainant. In addition, the very composition of the committee is of course flawed. While the Court's judgments and Regulations recognise the importance of an external member on such committees, not subject to the same influences as those within the organisation, the three judges hearing the complainant are all junior to the accused, as are any potential witnesses.
It would be impossible to list all the norms that the Court has violated in the last week alone. In the widely-criticised 'special hearing' on 20th April, the CJI presided over a hearing in his own cause and essentially falsified this fact in the final order. The two other judges on the bench, without hearing the other side, joined the CJI in conflating allegations against him with an attack on the "independence of the judiciary." The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General not only watched these legal axioms being violated, but actively participated. At the customary Monday meeting of SC judges afterwards, judges reportedly asked for all-male staff at their residential offices. There are subtler ways to deny fair process. But for high-ranking authorities to band together solely to discredit a complainant, without even an ostensible concern for rules of fairness that they themselves made, is a new nadir for its sheer brazenness.
In light of these events, and echoing demands made by several groups of lawyers and women's rights activists, PUDR demands:
The present three-judge inquiry should not proceed in the complainant's absence. The inquiry into her charges should instead be conducted by a special committee comprising and headed by external members who are not sitting Supreme Court judges.
The inquiry should be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court's own guidelines in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), and the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act (2013).
The complainant's requests for video-recording of proceedings, representation by a lawyer etc. should be granted.
Appropriate action should be taken against functionaries of the Court and the Delhi Police based on the findings of an impartial inquiry.
Supreme Court regulations should be suitably amended to fill existing gaps; including the exclusion from the 2013 Regulations of employees governed by the Court's service rules, and the lack of an 'In-House Procedure' for complaints made against the Chief Justice of India
Secretaries
Shahana Bhattacharya and Deepika Tandon
You can read the Statement of NGO's, Activists, Lawyers and Academicians here
We, members of women's groups, lawyers, scholars and civil society, stand in solidarity with the decision of the complainant to withdraw from the in-house committee proceedings into her complaint of sexual harassment at workplace, against the Chief Justice of India. The reasons given by her in the letter justify her decision to abstain, especially in the context of total imbalance of power vis-a-vis her on one side and the members of highest judiciary on the other.
Post the Complainant expressing her decision not to participate in the process, the Chief Justice of India is said to have appeared before the Committee and the Committee has decided to proceed with the enquiry ex-parte.
By this very conduct the committee has completely delegitimized itself. If the committee continues to proceed with the enquiry instead of satisfactorily concluding the matter it will raise many more questions.
We write again, calling upon the Supreme Court judges to take corrective steps and put a halt to these proceedings. If they fail to do so, not only the complainant but the citizens of this country, especially women and marginalized sections, will lose faith in the judicial system.
We are aware, that this is an extraordinary case that calls for extraordinary measures to be put in place, as this is a matter pertaining to the highest judicial authority under the constitution.
However, extraordinary measures cannot and ought not to overlook, fundamental principles of natural justice and fair hearing.
We reiterate that the constitution of the three judge Committee is inherently flawed, as the Chief Justice is senior to the three judges hearing the complaint and head of the Institution. The Committee also does not adhere to the spirit of either the 2013 Act or the Vishaka Guidelines, laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in 1997. The absence of an external member, whose role is to ensure that there is no undue pressure or influence on either the complainant or the witnesses during the enquiry, casts a shadow on the intent behind and the purpose of setting up this Committee itself.
Further, failing to stipulate the procedure to be followed, terming the proceeding as an 'informal', and not allowing a lawyer/support person to be present, completely ignores the unequal balance of power not only between the parties but also between the complainant and the Committee itself.
The procedure established by law has not only to be followed by those subordinates to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but by the Supreme Court itself. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India would have no meaning otherwise.
If the highest judicial authority does not follow its own procedures and stand up in support of the less powerful, it will send a message of disquiet to all those keeping faith in the system.
In order to maintain this faith and to stand with the less powerful, the complainant in this case, we implore the present Committee to immediately stop hearing this Complaint.
We once again demand of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:
A Special Enquiry Committee consisting of credible individuals be constituted to conduct a thorough enquiry at the earliest and create an atmosphere of transparency and confidence for the complainant to depose.
The Special Enquiry Committee should follow the norms of the IC and the principles of natural justice and accordingly conduct its enquiry.
The Chief Justice of India should refrain from transacting official duties and responsibilities until the completion of the enquiry.
The complainant must be allowed to be represented by a lawyer/support person of her choice.
Endorsed by,
Forum Against Oppression of Women, Mumbai
Nari Samata Manch, Pune
North East Network, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland
Labia – A Queer Feminist LBT Collective Mumbai
Saheli Women's Resource Center, New Delhi
Bebaak Collective
People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Maharashtra
National Federation of Indian Women
All India Progressive Women's Association (AIPWA)
Nari Ekta Shakti Sangathan, Delhi
Women Against Sexual Violence and State Repression
National Alliance of People's Movements
Nirantar, A Center for Gender and Education, New Delhi
Sandhya Gokhale, FAOW
Gautam Mody, General Secretary, New Trade Union Initiative
Veena Gowda, Advocate, Mumbai
Adv Vasudha Nagaraj, Lawyer, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad
Chayanika Shah, Queer Feminist Researcher and Activist, Mumbai
Nisha Biswas, Scientist and WSS, Kolkata
Dr. Veena Shatrughna, Former Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad
Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli, Transgender RTI activist, Telangana
Meera Sanghamitra, National Alliance of People's Movements, Telangana
Kavita Srivastava, PUCL
Adv. Pyoli Swatija, Supreme Court of India and WSS
Flavia Agnes, Advocate
Sandhya, Progressive Association of Women, Telangana
V. Geetha, Historian and Writer, Chennai
N. Vasanti, Professor of Constitutional Law, Nalsar, Hyderabad
Mary E John, New Delhi
Uma Chakravarti, Historian, New Delhi
Ammu Abraham, Mumbai
Nandita Shah, Akshara, Mumbai
Meena Gopal, Mumbai
Hasina Khan, Mumbai
Shals Mahajan, Mumbai
Rohit Prajapati, Vadodara
Susie Tharu, Feminist Academic and Researcher, Avneshi, Hyderabad
Amit Kumar, Student, LLB, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
Sarah Mathews, Sankalp Women's Support Alliance
Bijaya Chanda, Advocate, Alipore Court, Kolkata, West Bengal
Nityanand Jayaraman, Writer, Social activist. Chennai.
Sumi Krishna, Former President (2005-08), Indian Association for Women's Studies,Bengaluru
Kiran Shaheen, Journalist and Feminist Activist, New Delhi
Uma Shankari, Farmer, Researcher on Water, Environment and Livelihoods
Chitra, Labia, Mumbai
Adv Lara Jesani, People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Maharashtra
Vandita Morarka, Founder/CEO, One Future Collective
Tara, Feminist Collective, Sonepat
Saumya Malhotra, Democracy Collective , Delhi NCR
Arundhati Dhuru, NAPM Lucknow,U P
Lovika Jaiswal, Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, Noida
Leena Pujari, K C College, Mumbai.
Vimal Bhai, National Convenor, National Alliance of People's Movements
B.Girija, State Project Manager, Sakhi Telangana
Meena Seshu and Aarthi Pai, Sangram, Maharashtra
Gita Chadha, Sociologist, Mumbai
Shruti Chakravarty, Mental Health Practitioner, Bombay
Nandita Narain, Associate Professor, St Stephen's College, Delhi University. Former President, Delhi University Teachers' Association and Federation of Central Universities Teachers' Associations
Mitra Mukherjee-Parikh, Former Head, Associate Professor, SNDTWU
Dr. Joseph M.T., Department of Sociology, University of Mumbai, Kalina, Mumbai 61. Rukmini Banerjee, Researcher, Mumbai
Kabi. S, Mumbai
Dr V Rukmini Rao, Executive Director Gramya Resource Centre for Women, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, Telangana
Karuna DW, Chennai
Padmaja Shaw
Purnima Gupta, Delhi
Khadijah Faruqui, The Alternate Space Delhi, A Women's Collective, New Delhi
Tanya Jaiswal, Modern school, Noida
Supriya Jain, CORO India, Mumbai
K Ramnarayan, Uttarakhand, India
Kamayani Bali Mahabal, Humans Rights Activist, Mumbai
Bharat, Feminist Activist, Vishakha, Jaipur
Shahira Naim, Special Correspondent, The Tribune, Lucknow
Aiman Khan, Bangalore
Varsha Mehta
Roshni, Research Scholar, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Pallavi Sobti Rajpal, Ahmedabad
Meher Bhoot, WDC, University of Mumbai, Mumbai
Kusumtai Chaudhari Mahila Kalyani C/o Snehja Rupwate
Anupama Potluri, Assistant Professor, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Minakshi Sanyal, Queer feminist activist, Kolkata
Poushali Basak, FAOW, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
Anita Rego, Social Researcher
Smita Parmar, Social Activist, Hajipur, Bihar
Swabhiman Lok Seva Sansthan run by Medical Mission Sisters
Aruna Rodrigues,Environmental and Agro-ecology, Sunray Harvesters, MP
Subhasat
Bindu Doddahatti, Advocate, Bangalore
Tejaswini Madabhushi, Hyderabad for Feminism
A. Suneetha, Senior Fellow, Anveshi Research Center for Women's Studies
Dr. Asma Rasheed, Assistant Professor, EFL University
Sumitra Anukram, Founder of Anukram
Madhumita Sinha, EFL University, Hyderabad
Sajaya K., Independent Journalist and Social Activist, Caring Citizens Collective
Khalida Parveen, General Secretary Amoomat Society
Madhavi Mirapa, Scholar
Uma Bhrugubanda, EFL University, Hyderabad
Jayasree Subramanian, Visiting Faculty, Homi Bhabha Center for Science Education, Mumbai
Aileen Marques, Advocate Mumbai
Pratibha Shinde, Lok Sangharsh Morcha, Nandurbar, Maharashtra
Bittu K., Women Against Sexual Violence and State Repression, Telangana Hijra Intersex Trans Samiti, Asawarpur, Haryana
Tara Murali, Architect, Chennai
Padma, Human Rights Activist
Samar Bagchi, Educationist and Former Director, Birla Industrial and Technological Museum, Kolkata
Nandini Rao, Feminist Trainer and Activist, Women Against Sexual Violence and State Repression, New Delhi
Sandeep Pandey, Socialist Activist and NAPM, UP
M. Mandakini, Lawyer
Kondaveeti Satyavati Bhumika, Hyderabad
Sherin B.S.,English and Foreign Languages University
Lawrence, President, Inigo Foundation
Madhurima Majumder, Assistant Professor, Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Shyamala Nataraj, South India AIDS Action Programme
Anupama J, Counselor
M.Sujatha, SPERDS NGO
Jayna Kothari, Senior Advocate
Bindulakshmi, Mumbai
Suresh Melettukochy, Bhopal
Jai Sen, Researcher and Editor, New Delhi
Shubhada Deshmukh, Mahila Arogya Parishad, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra
Sana Contractor, Public Health Researcher, New Delhi
Youth Development
Nandita Gandhi, Activist, Mumbai
Manisha Gupte, Feminist, MASUM, Pune
Madhu Madhavan, Ex. JJP Member, Current PhD student from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai
Vimalbhai, Matu Jan Sangatgan, Uttarakhand
Mamta Singh, Social Worker, Women Rights Activist, Lucknow, UP
Rama Melkote, Prof.(Retd) or Political Science, Senior Activist, Osmania University, Hyderabad
S Jeevan Kumar, Human Rights Forum
K Sudha, Assistant Professor, DSNLU, Member, Human Rights Forum
K Anuradha, Human Rights Forum
Janaki Nair, JNU, New Delhi
Sujata Patel, Indian Institute of Advanced Study
Sukla Sen, Mumbai
K. Kiran Mayee, Advocate
V. Naga Lakshmi, Advocate
Mohammed Shakeel, Advocate
Ranjana, Women against Sexual Violence and State Repression, Bhubaneswar
Kalpana Karunakaran, IIT Madras
Kavitha Muralidharan, Journalist, Chennai
Meera Velayudhan, Policy Analyst, Kochi
Prema Revati, Educationist
Rachana Mudraboyina, Telangana Hijra Intersex Transgender Samiti
Saheli, Women's Resource Center, New Delhi
Vasudha Katju, Researcher, New Delhi
Aisha Farooqui, Prof. (Retd) Osmania University
Swathy Margaret, Researcher
S. Ashalatha, Social Activist
Radhika Khajuria, New Delhi
Purwa Bharadwaj, Delhi
Ketki Ranade, Mumbai
Asha Achuthan, Mumbai
Vineeta Bal, Pune.
Anjali Rawat, Law Researcher
Anubha Rastogi, Lawyer, Mumbai
Madhu Bhushan
Aatreyee Sen, Forum for Human Rights and Justice, Himachal Pradesh
Pragya Joshi, PUCL, Udaipur
Dr. Albertina Almeida, Advocate, Goa.
Vennela Madabhushi, Lawyer, Bangalore
Anuradha Pati, Development Professional
Soma KP, Independent Research Scholar
Lata Singh, JNU
Urmilla Chandran, Principal Technical Writer
Kaneez Fatima, Activist and Librarian
Kalyani Menon-Sen, Feminist Learning Partnerships
Masooma Ranalvi, We SpeakOut
Srinivas Vellikad, Senior Manager, Documentation.
S. Seethalakshmi, Researcher
Lakshmi Lingam, Professor, Mumbai
Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, Vijayawada
Vahida Nainar, Mumbai
Laxmi Murthy, Journalist, Bangalore
Jayasree.A K., Professor, Community Medicine, Govt. Medical College, Kannur, Kerala
Shaitan Singh, Law Student, Visakhapatnam
Anjana Ramanathan, Advocate
Piyoli Swatija, Advocate
VS Krishna, Human Rights Forum
Smita Gupta, New Delhi
Geeta Seshu, Journalist
Lakshmi Krishnamurthy
Reva Yunus, Azim Premji University
Ritu Dewan, Vice President at Indian Society of Labour Economics
Sarojini.N, New Delhi
Brinelle D'souza, TISS
Deeptha Achar, Professor, Baroda
Shilpaa Anand, BITS- Pilani, Hyderabad campus
Shefali Jha, University of Hyderabad
M. Madhavi, Assistant Professor, Presidency University, Bangalore
Kumar Shubham Raj, Advocate, Bihar
Bushra Quasmi, Asst Prof, DSNLU, Visakhapatnam
B Syama Sundari, Dastakar Andhra
Abha Bhaiya, Jagori
Ambika Tandon, New Delhi
Anandhi.S, Researcher, Chennai
Shalini Gera, Advocate, Bilaspur High Court
Govind Kelkar, Senior Advisor – Women, Land & Productive Assets
Sharmila Sreekumar, IIT, Bangalore
PV Srividya, Journalist, Krishnagiri
K. Katyayani, Prof (Retd), Kakatitya University, Warangal
Deepa V health Activist, Delhi
Sunita Bandewar, Forum for Medical Ethics Society, Mumbai; Vidhayak Trust, Pune
Anuradha Kapoor, Kolkata
Veena Johari, Advocate, Mumbai
Mumtaz Sheikh, CORO Mahila Mandal federation Mumbai
Rohini Hensman, Writer & Researcher
Dr Sagari R Ramdas, Veterinary Scientist
Tashi Choedup, Buddhist Monastic, Human Rights Activist
Aditi Joshi, Mumbai
Amarjit Singh, Mumbai
Kaveri Dadhich, Mumbai
Padma, Independent Researcher , Mumbai
Shakun Doundiyakhed, Ooty
R. Alphonso, Mumbai
Neha Singh, Mumbai
Shewli Kumar, Mumbai
Bharati Kapadia, Mumbai
Bindhulakshmi Pattadath, Mumbai
Catrinel Dunca, Ahmedabad
Nirja Vasavada, Ahmedabad
Shumona Goel
Mani A., Kolkata
Kamaxi Bhate, Mumbai
Mridul Dudeja, Mumbai
Rakhi Sehgal, Labour Activist, New Delhi
Gayatri, Faculty, TISS, Hyderabad
Abhiti Gupta, Legal Activist, New Delhi
Maneka Khanna, Advocate, Delhi
Surabhi Dhar, Advocate, Delhi
Zeba Sikora, Advocate, Mumbai
Rupali Samuel, Advocate, Delhi
Payoshi Roy, Advocate, Mumbai
Archit Krishna, Advocate, Chhattisgarh
Satnam Kaur, New Delhi
Reethika Ravikumar, Mumbai
Mini Mathew, Advocate, Mumbai
Sadhna Arya, University of Delhi
Fatima N, Tamil Nadu
Poorva Rajaram, Researcher, New Delhi
Vanessa Chishti, Jindal Law University, Sonipat
Esther Moraes, New Delhi
Niti Saxena, Lawyer, Researcher, and Activist, Lucknow
Tusharika Mattoo, Advocate, Delhi
Maulshree Pathak, Advocate Delhi
Shreya Munoth, Advocate, Delhi
Sayali Kadu, Advocate, Delhi
Shuchi Dwivedi, Advocate, Delhi
Rhea Goyal, Advocate, Delhi
Sowjhanya Shankaran, Advocate, Delhi
Anushree Malviya, Advocate, Delhi
Sonal Sarda, Advocate, Delhi
Sanya Kumar, Advocate, Delhi
Shreya Rastogi, Advocate, Delhi
Harshita Reddy, Advocate, Delhi
Sanjana Srikumar, Advocate, Delhi
Avantika, Advocate Delhi
Ninni Susan Thomas, Advocate Delhi
Nidhi Rao Gummuluru, Advocate, Delhi
Vasundhara Majithia, Advocate Delhi
Meghana Sengupta, Advocate Delhi
Shailiza Sharma, Advocate, Delhi High Court
Kanika Sood, Advocate Delhi
Kruti Venkatesh, Advocate, Bombay High Court
Bhavana Sunder, Advocate, Bombay High Court
Rhea Jha, Advocate, Bombay High Court
Devyani Kulkarni, Advocate, High Court, Bombay
Khusboo Agarwal, Bombay
Sara Ahmed, Bombay
Surabhi Singh, Advocate, High Court at Bombay
Ronita Bhattacharya, Advocate, High Court, Bombay
Jahnavi Vishwanath, Chennai
Janaki Abraham, Delhi University
Dimple Oberoi Vahali
Vandana Mahajan, A Feminist Practitioner
Lalita Ramdas, Educator and Citizen, Alibag, Maharashtra
Chitra Sinha, Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University, Sweden
Vasudha Sawaiker, Social Justice Action Committee, Goa
Amita Kanekar, Writer, Goa
Adsa Fatima, Health Activist, Delhi
Dr Mira Shiva
Dr. Saswati Ghosh, Academic and Activist, Kolkata
Amita Pitre, Consultant, Public Health and Gender Justice, Mumbai
Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate, Bombay High Court
Bindhulakshmi, Mumbai
Radhika Desai, Hyderabad
Ritu Menon, New Delhi
Shraddha Chickerur, Hyderabad
Svati Joshi, Ahmedabad
Aruna Burte, Pune
Malavika Karlekar, New Delhi
Sujata Gothoskar, Trade Union Activist, Mumbai
Nalini Nair, SEWA, Kerala
Sangeeta Chatterji, FAOW
Nisha, National Convenor, WSS
Ajita, National Convenor, WSS
Shalini, National Convenor, WSS
Rinchin, National Convenor, WSS
Hiranmay Karlekar, New Delhi
Rina Mukerji, Independent Journalist
Vibhuti Patel, Mumbai
Kavita Krishnan, AIPWA, New Delhi
Swarna Rajgopalan, Chennai
Chittaroopa Palit, Madhya Pradesh
Bondita Acharya, Human Rights Activist, Assam
Bela Bhatia, Bastar
AI Sharada, Laadli, Population First
Amit Mitra, New Delhi
Sujata Mody, National Secretary, New Delhi Trade Union Initiative
M. Dilli, Joint Secretary, Garment and Fashion Workers Union, Chennai
Anju Talukdar, Independent law and development professional, New Delhi
Vidha Saumya, Visual Artist, Oshiwara, Mumbai
Jasveen Jairath, Consultant, Water and Ecology, Concerned Citizens, Hyderabad
Shreya Suresh, Advocate, Bangalore
Sowmya Khandelwal, Associate at a Law Firm, Bangalore
M.V. Swaroop, Advocate, Madras High Court
Mangla Verma, Advocate, New Delhi
Chitra Narayan, Advocate, Chennai
Anusha Ramanathan, Visiting Faculty, University of Mumbai, Consultant, TISS
Richa, Humsafar, Lucknow
Sunila Singh, Woman Human Rights Defender, New Delhi
Zainab, Humsafar, LucknowAfroz Jahan, Humsafar, Lucknow
Anurekha, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Lalita, National Alliance of Women's Organizations, Odisha
Sister Lissy Joseph, National Domestic Workers Movement, Hyderabad
Nikhat Fatima, Journal Activist
Vasundhara Vedula, Mumbai
Swatija Manorama, Mumbai
Amrita Howlader, Kolkata
Nazia Akhter, Hyderabad
Swarup Beria, Guwahati
Arpita Jaya, Quill Foundation
Sheela Rahulan, Vanithakalasahithi, Trivandrum
Dr. Iris Koileo, Assocaite Professor (Retd.), St. Xavier's College,
Women Writers Group, Vinimaya, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala