Why Did Two Judges Recuse Themselves From Hearing Tarun Tejpal's Plea In Sexual Assault Case ?

Tarun Tejpal Case: After Supreme Court judge Justice L Nageswara Rao, Justice UU Lalit also recused himself from hearing an appeal filed by former Editor-in-Chief of Tehelka magazine Tarun Tejpal. The journalist has been accused of sexual assault by his female colleague.

Tejpal had been acquitted by a sessions court in Goa in the case which had drawn much outrage from all quarters. The judge while acquitting Tejpal had questioned the behaviour of the survivor in the case implying that she was not behaving like a survivor of sexual assault. The goa government then filed an appeal challenging the session's court verdict and the case has been developing since then. Tarun Tejpal had appealed to the Bombay High Court in Goa to for an in-camera hearing in the case. The appeal was rejected by the court so Tejpal appealed to Supreme Court for the same.

Why did two judges recused themselves from hearing Tarun Tejpal's plea?

Justice Lalit was heading the panel hearing Tejpal's plea in Supreme Court regarding the 2013 sexual assault case. Justice PS Narasimha said, " Justice Lalit is not going to hear the matter." The bench comprised of Justice S Ravindra Bhat as well.

According to a report by Livelaw, Justice UU Lalit recused himself from hearing Tejpal's plea because he had represented Tejpal before the Supreme Court in the past. Justice L Nageswara Rao had recused himself from hearing Tejpal's case because he had appeared in 2015 as the counsel for the Goa state government in the same sexual assault case.

Suggested Reading: Tarun Tejpal Court Order: How Exactly Should A Sexual Assault Survivor Behave?

Status of Tarun Tejpal case:

After a Goa sessions court acquitted Tejpal of all charges, assault, criminal force with intent to outrage modesty, wrongful confinement, sexual harassment and rape, the Goa government challenged the verdict.

Tejpal then moved to Bombay High Court with an application seeking an in-camera hearing of the case. He also argued that the identity of the accused ( Tarun Tejpal) in the case is as important to protect as the survivor's. The court had rejected his plea.

The journalist was accused of the crime by his female colleague. The complainant has alleged that Tejpal sexually assaulted her in an elevator of a hotel in Goa on November 7 and November 8, 2013.  The survivor had first reported the incident to Tehelka magazine's managing editor Shoma Choudhary. Tejpal had responded to the allegation in form of two apology letters. He had written, "unconditionally for the shameful lapse of judgement that led me to attempt a sexual liaison with you on two occasions on 7 November and 8 November 2013, despite your clear reluctance that you did not want such attention from me”. While the letter was expected to count as a confession of the crime, the sessions court denied to call it that. The court said that the letter cannot incriminate Tejpal as it was his letter to Tehelka recusing himself as the editor-in-chief.

After nearly a decade since the alleged incident, the trial still seems to be going on.