The petitioner approached the Supreme Court to determine whether acts of sexual harassment and molestation fall under the Governor’s duties, thus granting him immunity under Article 361. The plea questions if a victim should be left without recourse, having to wait for the Governor to leave office, which could cause undue delay and undermine the judicial process, leaving the victim without justice.
KOLKATA: On Wednesday(3rd July): A woman staff member of the West Bengal Raj Bhawan, who alleged sexual harassment by Governor CV Ananda Bose, has moved the Supreme Court challenging the immunity conferred on the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution.
READ ALSO: Sexual Harassment Case | Calcutta HC Stays Proceedings Against West Bengal Governor’s OSD
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court to determine whether acts of sexual harassment and molestation fall under the Governor’s duties, thus granting him immunity under Article 361. The plea questions if a victim should be left without recourse, having to wait for the Governor to leave office, which could cause undue delay and undermine the judicial process, leaving the victim without justice.
The plea stated,
“The court must determine if a victim like the petitioner can be left without recourse, forced to wait for the accused to leave office. Such a delay would be inexplicable during the trial and would turn the entire process into mere lip service, denying justice to the victim.”
The plea also seeks a thorough investigation by the West Bengal police and requests guidelines on the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361. According to the petitioner, while a civil suit against a Governor can be initiated after a two-month notice, no such provision exists for criminal proceedings, leaving the petitioner without remedy.
READ ALSO: SC Seeks West Bengal Governor’s Response to PIL Alleging Inaction on Bill Assent
The petitioner argued that Article 361 should not hinder police powers in such cases. She contended that the Governor’s immunity should not be absolute, allowing illegal acts or violations of constitutional rights. The immunity should not prevent police from investigating the offense or naming the perpetrator in complaints or FIRs despite specific allegations.
The petitioner argued that the purpose of Article 361 is not to hinder police authority in such cases.
“These powers should not be interpreted as absolute, allowing the Hon’ble Governor to engage in illegal acts or violate fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. Furthermore, this immunity should not obstruct the police’s ability to investigate the offense or name the perpetrator in complaints or FIRs, despite clear allegations,” she submitted.
The complaint alleges that the Governor called the victim on April 24 and May 2 under the pretext of offering a better job, only to sexually harass her within the Raj Bhavan premises during working hours. The Governor, while supposedly performing his official duties, allegedly engaged in inappropriate conduct and used the media to dismiss the allegations as an “engineered narrative,” leaving the petitioner voiceless and marginalized.
The petitioner has requested state protection and compensation for the trauma endured. In May, the Calcutta High Court stayed proceedings in an FIR against the Governor’s Officer on Special Duty (OSD-II), who was accused of restraining the victim and pressuring her not to file a sexual harassment complaint against the Governor.
