Brij Bhushan case: Women wrestlers conclude arguments, question oversight committee and its report

New Delhi [India], January 23 (ANI): The complainants, women wrestlers, on Tuesday, questioned the constitution of the oversight committee and its report of the inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP and former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.
The Rouse Avenue court is hearing arguments on the framing of charges in the sexual harassment case filed against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.
Senior advocate Rebecca John argued and concluded the arguments on behalf of the complainants, women wrestlers.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Priyanka Rajpoot recorded the submission and listed the matter of hearing arguments on behalf of accused Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar on February 2, 2024.
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 the any law which 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 Internal Complaint Committee (ICC). There is no finding, no exoneration and it is not a report.
The senior counsel also 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.
Senior counsel for the victim 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 co-accused Vinod Tomar is of an abettor.
In the facts and circumstances of this particular case a prima facie case is made out, she submitted. (ANI)