'Judicial Officer Battling With Mother In Her': Supreme Court While Reinstating District Judge Who Resigned Out Of Desperation

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, reinstated a woman Additional District and Sessions Judge ("AD&SJ"), who was constrained to resign, after she raised allegations of sexual harassment against a then sitting Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Court's indulgence was, inter alia, sought in directing the reinstatement of the petitioner as AD&SJ from the date of resignation, i.e., 15.07.2014 with continuity in service, back wages and consequential reliefs. Acknowledging the petitioner's resignation was not voluntary, the Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai quashed the order passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Law and Legislative Affairs Department, accepting the resignation of the petitioner and directed her reinstatement with continuity in service and all consequential benefits w.e.f. 15.07.2014, but without any back wages. While making submissions, Senior Advocate, Ms. Indira Jaising appearing on behalf of the petitioner had beseeched the Apex Court to consider the dilemma of the petitioner, who was compelled to choose between her duties as a judicial officer and her duties as a mother. She contended that pushing a woman to make such a choice is in derogation of the principles laid down in Article 11 of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). It was her case that the transfer order was a vindictive response to the petitioner protesting against the sexual harassment by a then sitting High Court judge, who was her supervisor. The petitioner's daughter was studying in Class 12 and was preparing for her Board and other Competitive examinations, at the time when the transfer order was issued to her. The petitioner's husband had to stay in Delhi in order to look after his aged parents. Acknowledging her circumstances, the Court noted that she was playing the role of both a father and a mother for her daughters and had to draw a balance between her profession and dependent children. When the transfer order was passed, she had submitted a representation asking the Transfer Committee to consider her difficulty of moving to another city, especially Category 'C' city where she would not be able to provide her daughter with quality education. The Court observed that her ardent request was rejected in a cryptic and arbitrary manner, without due consideration.The Court observed :"The petitioner was a Judicial Officer and a mother too. The Judicial Officer in her must have been battling with the mother in her. On one hand, was her career as a Judicial Officer; on the other hand, was the possibility of her daughter's educational prospects and career coming into jeopardy, if she shifted to the place of posting at Sidhi. A possibility of her mind engrossed with a feeling, that she was subjected to injustice by the very Institution of Judiciary, cannot be ruled away." "80. …It appears that in a gruesome battle between a mother and a Judicial Officer, the Judicial Officer lost the battle to the mother."81. Reaction of a person to a particular situation would depend from person to person. No two individuals can be expected to respond identically to a same situation. It is quite possible that some other person in the petitioner's place, would have chosen to pursue one's own career without bothering about the daughter's education and prospects of good career."Acknowledging the unfavourable circumstances of the petitioner, the Court noted that her resignation was a result of the frustration that emanated from her thought that the very institution she had vouched to serve treated her in an unjust manner. "…The resignation letter in the present case, as has already been discussed hereinabove, appears to be on account of exasperation and frustration actuated by a thought, that injustice was being meted out to her by the very Institution of Judiciary." The petitioner was transferred from Gwalior, a Category 'A' city to Sidhi, a Category 'C' city. Immediately, she had sent a representation seeking eight months' extension in the transfer, till the time her daughter, then studying in Class 12 completes her academic year, which was rejected. A second representation was made seeking transfer to a Category 'B' city so that her daughter could continue with her education, which was also rejected. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to resign. Analysis by the Supreme Court Though non-enforceable, Transfer Policy was required to be followed as it created legitimate expectationThe Court noted the Transfer Policy, which was laid down by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 12.01.2012 was a set of guidelines for internal administration for the subordinate judiciary. And the same though not enforceable in law creates a legitimate expectation that such policy would be given due weightage when decisions of transfer are taken. Transfer was rushedIt was observed that the petitioner's transfer...

'Judicial Officer Battling With Mother In Her': Supreme Court While Reinstating District Judge Who Resigned Out Of Desperation

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags