LexADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE 'X' versus REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 300 A ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE 'X' B c v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 792 OF 2014) DECEMBER 18. 2014 [JAG DISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950 ~Art. 32 - Writ petition by former Additional District and Sessions Judge-petitioner - A/legation of sexual harassment at the behest of the sitting judge of the High Court and that the procedure followed for D inquiry not in consonance with the in-house procedure adopted by this Court - Chief Justice of the High Court constituted two member senior judges Enquiry Committee to make discreet enquiry instead of making the discreet inquiry at his own - Challenge to- Held: Chief Justice of the E High Court travelled beyond the determinative authonty vested in him, under stage-one of the in-house procedure - Chief Justice of the High Court, by constituting two-Judge Committee, commenced an in-depth probe, into the allegations levelled by the petitioner which forms part of the F second stage of the in-house procedure and is to be carried out under the authority of the Chief Justice of traversed beyond his jurisdictional authority, under the in-house procedure- Thus, the Chief Justice of the High Court, having assumed a firm position, in respect of certain facts contained G in the complaint filed by the petitioner, ought not to be associated with the in-house procedure - Proceedings adopted by the Chief Justice of the High Court set aside - Chief Justice of India may reinitiate the investigative process, 'under the in-house procedure, by assigning the role to Chief H 300 ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X'v. RG,HIGH COURT 301 OFM.P. Justice of some other High Court, or alternatively, may A himself assume the said role -Judiciary. Judiciary-A/legations leveled against judge of superior court through his peers- In-house proc;edure framed by this Court consequent upon the decision rendered in C. 8 Ravichandran lyer's case - To inquire into the a/legations - Seven steps of the in-house procedure - Manner in which in-house procedure is to be invoked - Explained and elucidated. Investigation - Investigation into a/legations against judges- Investigative process under the in-house procedure - Held: To consider rights of the complainant, and that of the judge, by adopting a fair procedure, to determine the veracity c of a/legations - It safeguards the integrity of the judicial 0 institution- Chief Justice of India is to ensure that the process affords safeguards, against favouritism, prejudice or bias. Crime against women - Sexual harassment - Connotation - Held: Issue of sexual harassment has a variety of fine connotations - Evaluation of a charge of sexual E harassment, would depend on the manner in which it is perceived - Each case would be decided on its own merits - Its evaluation may sometimes depend upon the sensitivity of the person concerned and also whether, the perception of F the h~Hassed individual was known to the person accused - Whether the perception of the harassed individual, was conveyed to the person accused, would be very material, in a case falling in the realm of over-sensitivity. Disposing of the Writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 With reference to the "in-house procedure" pertaining to a judge of a High Court, the limited authority of the Chief Justice of the concerned G H 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R. A High Court, is to determine whether or not a deeper probe is required. The said determination is a part of stage-one (comprising of the first three steps) of the "in- house procedure". The Chief Justice of the High Court, in the present case, traveled beyond the determinative B authority vested in him, under stage-one of the "in-ho1.1se procedure". The Chief Justice of the High Court, by constituting a "two-Judge Committee", commenced an in-depth probe, into the allegations levelled by the petitioner. The procedure adopted by the Chief Justice C of the High Court, forms a part of the second stage (contemplated under steps four to seven-elucidated herein). The second stage of the "in-house procedure" is to be carried out, under the authority of the Chief 0 Justice of India. The Chief Justice of the High Court by constituting a "two-Judge Committee" clearly traversed beyond his jurisdictional authority, under the "in-house procedure". In order to ensure, th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.