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 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