SC orders fresh inquiry against HC judge

Hours after the Supreme Court allowed her plea, the former additional district and sessions judge of Gwalior told The Indian Express she was hopeful that justice would finally be done to her.

The judge, who had resigned after alleging that she had been sexually harassed by the High Court judge, said she would “fully cooperate” with the in-house inquiry panel ordered to be constituted by the Supreme Court.

“My battle is half won. I had approached the Supreme Court only because the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court had set up a committee in which I had no faith and which was not in conformity with the procedure established by the Supreme Court. Today’s order upholds my contention. I am satisfied with the order,” she said.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court Chief Justice had gone beyond his authority in initiating the probe, because his role under the  mechanism was confined to determining whether a deeper probe was required — and to subsequently sending a report to the Chief Justice of India.

The court requested the CJI to initiate the investigative process and set up a three-judge panel to look into the complaint of the former woman judge, but without assigning any role to the Chief Justice of the High Court.

The bench noted that the HC Chief Justice had already adopted a “firm” position in the matter and “personally perceived certain facts differently”. Hence, the task of ascertaining whether the accusations warranted a deeper probe should not be carried out by him — but by a Chief Justice of another HC, or by the CJI himself. Under the in-house procedure, the three-judge panel should have Chief Justices of different HCs and a HC judge.

The court also stripped the accused HC judge of his administrative and supervisory authority after accepting the petitioner’s argument that he was in a position to influence the inquiry wherein court employees under his control were the prime witnesses.

“In order to ensure that the investigative process is fair and just, it is imperative to divest the concerned judge of his administrative and supervisory authority and control over witnesses, to be produced either on behalf of the complainant, or on behalf of the concerned judge himself. The Chief Justice of the High Court is accordingly directed,” the bench said.

The HC judge will, however, continue to discharge his judicial functions. The court left all other issues, including the matter of the woman judge’s reinstatement, open to be decided in a separate petition.

“It was not an easy battle,” the former judge said to The Indian Express on Thursday. “But I had to do it to get justice. I am hopeful that the new committee will establish the truth without bothering about who the accused is or what high position he holds,” she said.

In an interview to this newspaper in August, the judge, while recounting her tale, had questioned the legality of the probe ordered by the HC Chief Justice. She had described the inquiry as a “sham” and an “eyewash aimed at continuing (her) harassment and saving the accused”.

The case was the first to be adjudicated upon by the SC on the issue of the in-house procedure. All such earlier cases had either been disposed of on the administrative side or the accused judges had resigned, or impeachment proceedings had been initiated without making the outcome of the in-house inquiry a basis.

The bench ordered that “in view of the importance of the in-house procedure”, the Supreme Court Registry should publicise it on the official website.

“The object sought to be addressed through the in-house procedure is to address concerns of institutional integrity. That would, in turn, sustain the confidence of the litigating public in the efficacy of the judicial process,” it said.

Under the in-house procedure, in case of a complaint against a sitting judge, the High Court Chief Justice must first determine whether a detailed inquiry was necessary. The Chief Justice must then send a report to the CJI, who with the help of a three-judge panel, initiates the investigation.

The panel, after carrying out a confidential inquiry, submits its report to the CJI. If the CJI finds the misconduct to be serious, the accused judge may be asked to resign. If he refuses, the CJI may recommend that impeachment proceedings be initiated against the judge.