SC Petitioned to Reevaluate Governor Immunity After Molestation Claim

A contractual woman employee has approached the Supreme Court, alleging molestation by West Bengal Governor CV Ananda Bose. She challenges the immunity granted to him under Article 361 of the Constitution, which prevents criminal proceedings against a Governor during their term. The petitioner seeks guidelines on the extent of this immunity.

The plea questions if a victim must wait for the accused to leave office before seeking justice. It argues that such delays could undermine the trial and deny justice to the victim. The woman has also requested an investigation by West Bengal police and protection for her and her family.

Allegations and Evidence

The woman lodged a complaint with Kolkata Police, claiming she was molested by Bose at the Governor's house on April 24 and May 2. She criticised Bose for not providing CCTV footage to the police immediately, suggesting it was an attempt to deflect attention from his actions.

Footage from two CCTV cameras at the main north gate, covering 5.32 pm to 6.41 pm on May 2, was shown to select individuals and journalists at Raj Bhavan. In one video, the employee, dressed in jeans and a top, is seen hurrying to a police outpost within the Governor's house amidst numerous police personnel present for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit.

Governor's Response

Amidst these allegations, Bose filed a defamation case against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on June 28. This followed Banerjee's claim that women were afraid to visit Raj Bhavan due to ongoing activities there. The Calcutta High Court has postponed the hearing in this matter until Thursday.

The second footage, lasting about 10 minutes, showed various vehicles, including fire tenders, arriving at Raj Bhavan's north gate. Policemen were seen lining up for their duties, but the victim was not visible in this footage.

The woman has also sought compensation from the government for her loss of reputation. She insists that Bose orchestrated a drama to divert attention from his actions and should have provided CCTV footage at the investigation's outset.

The Supreme Court now faces the task of deciding whether victims like the petitioner can be left without immediate recourse due to Article 361's protections. This case raises significant questions about the balance between constitutional immunity and victims' rights.

The court's decision will have implications for how similar cases are handled in the future. It will determine if guidelines are needed to clarify when and how Governors can be held accountable while in office.

This case highlights the tension between constitutional protections for high-ranking officials and ensuring justice for alleged victims of misconduct. The outcome will be closely watched as it could set a precedent for handling such allegations against Governors in India.