Sexual harassment accused RK Pachauri’s interview to The Guardian has created quite a stir. The complainant alleges that while The Guardian had also reached out to her for her response, they did not publish her reply. The Quint reported the entire list of questions asked and the complainant’s response through her lawyer.
Read: Accuser Rebuts As Pachauri Speaks Out For the First Time
Speaking to The Quint, the complainant accuses RK Pachauri of sharing ‘select’ evidence in the case with the media.
This is extremely serious that ‘evidence’ in the case are being given to the media. I was never even shown these said emails and how can ‘select evidence texts’ be put out. The matter is sub judice. Speaking on merits is extremely serious. It is these stunts that actually classify to initiate a trial by the media. How contradictory that on one hand the accused says he was hacked and then he apparently has ‘some’ emails from me.
The complainant further alleges that while Pachauri is trying to leak ‘selected’ conversations, the evidence she submitted to the Delhi Police was not one-sided.
Also Read: RK Pachauri Breaks His Silence Over Sexual Harassment Allegations
‘Prove Hacking in Court’
The complainant is also very upset that Pachauri is making repeated attempts to reveal her identity by describing the nature of her work, tenure of employment and leaking correspondence. She further lashes out at why the evidence of hacking is being shared with the media, but is not submitted in court.
If The Guardian, as told to my lawyers in the email, claim to have seen emails showing hacking, why aren’t these documents before court? May I apprise that in the lawsuit that the accused has filed against Bennett Coleman & Co, he has been slapped with fines for defaulting in filing replies. If he had a reply ready why was it not placed before our courts? The ready reply instead was given to international press to initiate trial by media by proclaiming innocence abroad.
‘Courts Haven’t Permitted Pachauri to Travel Abroad for Interviews’
The complainant also questions how Pachauri, who is out on anticipatory bail and has sought special permission from courts to travel abroad for ‘livelihood’, is giving media interviews.
He claims to have to travel abroad for his livelihood. He is on anticipatory bail and has got special permission from the courts to do so, but his time and focus seem to be on such media interviews.
‘Lawyer Payments and Insinuations’
The complainant is also ‘deeply disturbed and offended’ with insinuations made by Pachauri regarding how she is paying for legal counsel. In the interview, Pachauri has raised questions about how the complainant is paying for legal aid.
Deeply disturbed and offended that I was asked about how I am paying my lawyers. I don’t know what exactly is being insinuated here? I can also question that how are the designated senior counsels who appear on his behalf are paid.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)