Brij Bhushan Singh Case: Woman Wrestlers Question Oversight Committee, Says 'Can't Rely On Its Report'

In the sexual harassment complaint against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP and former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, the complainants, women wrestlers, questioned the constitution of the oversight committee and its report of the inquiry against the saffron party leader. The case is being heard by the Rouse Avenue Court on the framing of charges against the WFI chief.

Senior advocate Rebecca John argued and concluded the arguments on behalf of the complainants, women wrestlers.

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Priyanka Rajpoot, recorded the submission and has listed the matter of hearing arguments on behalf of accused Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar on February 2, 2024.

The senior counsel argued that the oversight committee was not constituted as per the provisions of the POSH (Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment) Act. Its report was not a statutory report under any law that can be relied upon, she added. It was also submitted that the offences against the accused are made out and there is sufficient evidence to frame charges against the accused persons. It was contended that the Oversight Committee was not the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC). There is no finding, no exoneration, and it is not a report.

During the hearing, the counsel referred to the statement of a witness who stated that the breathing exercise was done only on female wrestlers but not on their male counterparts. It was also submitted that they were aware that they were compliant with the Act, and when the report was signed, they did not see any lawyer, judge, or NGO person who was there.

“Where is that paragraph where the committee exonerates him,” she questioned. There was no exoneration, and that averment is not based on facts, she added.

Senior advocate Rebecca John concluded her arguments by saying that offences under sections 354 and 354A IPC are made out. She also submitted that the role of the co-accused, Vinod Tomar, is that of an abettor.

(With input from agencies)