The alleged sexual harassment case against a sitting Madhya Pradesh High Court judge will be examined afresh by the Chief Justice of India after the Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the enquiry panel constituted by the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court and ordered withdrawal of all administrative and supervisory functions of the accused judge.
The apex court held that the complaint of the lady judge will be enquired either by Chief Justice of India or a Chief Justice of any other High Court other than the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The court further withdrew all administrative and supervisory functions of the accused judge in order to ensure a fair probe and allow witnesses working under him to depose without fear.
The judge in question is the Administrative Judge of Gwalior Bench of the MP High Court while the victim was an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Gwalior. She had complained to then CJI RM lodha against the HC judge who passed sexually-coloured remarks and demanded her to dance at a function in his residence. She resigned after being transferred to a far-flung area despite citing her inability on account of her daughter’s Board examination.
The Bench comprising Justices Jagdish S Khehar and Arun Mishra, dealing with the petition by the victim considered the procedure to be adopted in cases where a sitting judge is accused of sexual harassment by a woman judge or judicial officer. It held that the in-house procedure adopted by the Supreme Court on October 30, 1997 was sufficient in this regard and directed the Supreme Court Registry to display the same on its website.
Sadly, the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court erred by constituting a two-judge enquiry committee comprising judges serving in the same High Court.
According to SC, this stage had not arrived. The Chief Justice of High Court was supposed to conduct preliminary enquiry, call for a response from the concerned judge and submit his opinion to the Chief Justice of India, who alone under the procedure could form an Enquiry Committee for “deeper probe” of the allegations, it said.
Indicting the Chief Justice of the HC, the SC set aside the Committee constituted by him in August this year. It said, “Unfortunately, what Chief Justice of the High Court has embarked upon is not a prima facie determination but a holistic consideration of the allegations.” Moreover, by including judges of the same Court, fairness of enquiry got vitiated as “it is possible for one or the other party to feel that he/she may not get justice at the hands of the two-judge Committee,” the SC Bench noted.
The error of the Chief Justice of the MP High Court was compounded as he denied certain facts of the case asserted by the complainant who alleged that despite repeated attempts to meet him, his office flatly denied the fact that the victim had contacted the judge’s secretary. Due to this reason, the apex court thought it fit to disassociate MP High Court Chief Justice from the “re-initiation” of in-house inquiry in this case by the CJI.
Giving legal sanctity to the in-house procedure, that so far had morally bound judges to follow, the SC Bench even incorporated the procedure in its judgment for all times to come.