"Painful To See Sexual Harassment In Judiciary": Indira Jaising Seeks Reinstatement Of Resigned Woman Judge Who Complained Against HC Judge

The Supreme Court on Thursday began the final hearing of a plea filed by a woman Additional District Judge (ADJ) who resigned from service due to alleged sexual harassment by a sitting High Court judge and is now seeking reinstatement. A Bench comprising Justice Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai heard the detailed arguments made by Senior Advocates Indira Jaising appearing for the petitioner and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Madhya Pradesh High Court. While Senior Counsel Jaising conclude her arguments today, SG Mehta will continue his arguments next week. While expressing concern regarding the absence of a mechanism within the judiciary to address the injustice caused due to sexual harassment, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising urged the Court to put in place such a mechanism. "It's painful to see sexual harassment in the judiciary and that too without a mechanism to address the injustice caused. I'd urge your Lordships through your judicial marvel, to put in place the mechanism... this is not the first case of woman judicial officer facing sexual harassment", Jaising said.She submitted that while she is concerned about the Judiciary as an institution, she is equally concerned about the position of women in the Judiciary.Senior Counsel Jaising pointed out that the Supreme Court through its various judges has repeatedly said that they want to encourage women in the Judiciary and if that is the official declared policy of the top court, she doesn't see any legal hurdle in the grant of relief being granted.Senior Advocate Jaising stated that it is true that the petitioner raised the allegations against the HC judge after the termination of her services; but even before that, she had been speaking to people about it and seeking meeting with the Chief Justice of the High court She pointed out that there exists no written policy in place that a Judge can access to make a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace.She stated that there exist policies in place which enable employees to make a complaint of sexual harassment. As irony would have it, the petitioner was heading that committee appointed by the High Court to be the presiding officer to entertain complaints by employees of High Court against their co-employees relating to sexual harassment. There was no policy in place which enabled a judicial officer to make a complaint of sexual harassment against another judicial officer. This was a major limitation"When one asks the question as to why she didn't complain, one has to understand that there's no complaint mechanism in place" Jaising remarked. She was compelled to resign: JaisingWhile it's true that the petitioner had tendered her resignation which was accepted by the State, her resignation was coerced as she was compelled to resign, to choose between her duties towards her daughter and her career as a working woman. Petitioner Compelled To Choose Between Her Duties As a Woman and a judicial officerSenior Counsel Jaising submitted that since the petitioner was compelled to resign, and to choose between her duties towards her daughter and her career as a working woman, her resignation wasn't voluntarily. It was coerced and hence is a deemed dismissal. Therefore, she is entitled to be reinstated.She submitted that the petitioner's transfer was vindictive in relation to a woman judge and her child when the woman judge was only trying to educate her daughter."Are we a country which compels women judicial officers to choose between being a mother or career as a judicial officer ? My answer is no, as that will be unconstitutional", Jaising remarkedInquiry Committee Said There Was Insufficient Evidence, Didn't say There was No Sexual Harassment: JaisingSenior Counsel Jaising argued that the inquiry committee had concluded that there was insufficient material to hold the judge guilty of sexual harassment, but it did not say that there was no harassmentTransfer Order Issued In Violation of Transfer Policy: JaisingSenior Counsel Jaising submitted that the order transferring petitioner was violative of the transfer policy and the Inquiry Committee had itself concluded that the order was illegal, unlawful & contrary to the transfer policy.She pointed out that the transfer was contrary to transfer policy in 3 respects:The policy says in case of a Judge who has a daughter, studying in class 12 and the school doesn't have hostel facilities, the judge will not be transferred, as it is a board exam. The petitioner's daughter was in 12th and her school didn't have hosted facilities but the petitioner was still transferred hence so policy was violated.The petitioner was transferred from class A city to class C city which was a policy violation.Her representation to let her stay till the time her daughter completes 12th was rejected. Her second representation to at least transfer her from Class A to B city where there were colleges for her daughter was rejected. It has been argued that the second...

"Painful To See Sexual Harassment In Judiciary": Indira Jaising Seeks Reinstatement Of Resigned Woman Judge Who Complained Against HC Judge

Srishti Ojha

Jaising argued before the Supreme Court that the judge had to resign due to compelling circumstances.

Tags