2014 Supreme(SC) 912

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra, JJ.
Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' – Petitioner
Vs.
Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 792 of 2014
Decided On : 18-12-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
The "in-house procedure" can be adopted, to examine allegations levelled against Judges of High Courts, Chief Justices of High Courts and Judges of the Supreme Court of India.
The investigative process under the "in-house procedure" addresses the rights of the complainant, and that of the concerned judge, by adopting a fair procedure. At the same time, it safeguards the integrity of the judicial institution.
The Chief Justice of India, would have the authority to mould the procedure to ensure that the investigative process affords safeguards, against favouritism, prejudice or bias.
It is essential to bring the "in-house procedure" into public domain. The Registry of the Supreme Court of India to place the same on the official website of the Supreme Court of India.
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. He thus exceeded his jurisdiction.
In order to ensure, that the investigative process is fair and just, it is imperative to divest the concerned judge (against whom allegations have been levelled), 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.

Headnote:(a) Administration of Justice – Sexual harassment – Lady counsel for petitioner frequently interjecting the counsel for respondent no. 1 – Court exhorting counsel for respondent no. 1 to go on unmindful of the interruption – Counsel for respondent no. 1 observing that interjections by the counsel for the petitioner are always ‘delightful’ – Counsel for petitioner taking exception to use of word delightful – Evaluation of a charge of sexual harassment – Depends upon the manner in which it is perceived – If over-sensitive perception of a harassed person was conveyed to the person accused, it would not be open to him to defend himself by projecting that he had not sexually harassed the person concerned, because in his understanding the alleged action was unoffending. (Para 17)

       (b) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – Rule of law – Nobody, including Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, is above law – Every citizen must abide by the norms and regulation prescribed – Judges cannot afford to be involved in disputes. (Para 20)

       (c) Practice and Procedure – Rule of law – Judicial Propriety – "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" – ‘In-house procedure’ – Framed for the Judges of High Courts, the Chief Justices of High Courts and the Judges of Supreme Court – approved by Full Court of Supreme Court of India – Established means for inquiring into allegations against a judge of a superior court, through his peers – Confidential inquiry – To be kept out of public domain – Prayer seeking disclosure of the report of "in-house procedure" – Not acceptable. (Para 22, 24, 25)

       (1995) 5 SCC 457 – Relied upon

       (d) Practice and Procedure – Rule of law – Judicial Propriety – "Restatement of Values of Judicial Life" – ‘In-house procedure’ – Chief Justice of India not having any disciplinary authority over Judges of Chief Justice of India – However, report can lead to impeachment under Article 124 of the Constitution. (Para 26)

       (e) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Writ petition by third party seeking report of “in-house procedure” – Not maintainable. (Para 26)

       (2003) 5 SCC 494 – Relied upon

       (f) Constitution of India – Article 32 – Persons liable to be affected by outcome of "in-house procedure" – Have right to seek judicial redressal on account of a perceived irregularity – On account of violation of contemplated procedure, contemplated bias or prejudice or impropriety – Challenge can extend to all subjects on which judicial review can be sought – Writ held maintainable – However, having submitted to the authority of the procedure, one cannot turn back and challenge the report. (Para 26)

       (g) In-house procedure – Paragraph (1) and (2) – Vests jurisdictional authority in the Chief Justice of the High Court exclusively – ‘He’ has to evaluate the complaint and the response – Based thereupon ‘he’ has to send his report to the Chief Justice of India – Constitution of a committee to conduct full-fledged enquiry – Beyond jurisdiction. (Para 27, 28, 29, 31, 32)

       (h) Practice and Procedure – Rule of law – Judicial Propriety – ‘In-house procedure’ – All aspects considered while evolving the procedure – Sensitivity of matter kept in mind – Individual integrity of parties take care of – Unraveling truth was the aim – Devised to ensure preservation of institutional reputation as well – Exclusion of judges of same Court from the investigative process well thought out. (Para 34)

       (i) Practice and Procedure – Rule of law – Judicial Propriety – ‘In-house procedure’ – Seven steps – Chief of High Court involved only in first stage (first three steps) – Not open to him either to constitute a Judges Committee, or to require the Committee to hold an inquiry by recording statements of witnesses. (Para 37, 38)

       (j) Practice and Procedure – Rule of law – Judicial Propriety – ‘In-house procedure’ – Judicial Propriety – By constituting the Judges Committee and requiring it to hold full-fledged enquiry – Chief Justice of High Court introducing serious infirmities which were sought to be removed by the ‘procedure’ – By his actions Chief Justice of High Court usurping the investigative process which is to be monitored by the Chief Justice of India – Proceedings not sustainable – Set aside. (Para 39)

       (k) Administration of Justice – Natural justice – Two Judges Committee constituted by Chief Justice of High Court comprising of colleagues of Justice ‘A’ against whom allegations are levelled – Justice ‘A’ being inspecting Judge – All officers and staff witnesses whether for the complainant or the complained-against will be under influence of Justice ‘A’ – Investigation should be fair without any influence – Complainant may raise such grievance before Chief Justice of India. (Para 41)

       (l) Administration of Justice – Judicial Propriety – ‘In-house procedure’ – Proceeding initiated by Chief Justice of High Court set aside being beyond jurisdiction – Chief Justice of High Court taking anti-petitioner stance in certain aspects – Would not be appropriate to associate him with the procedure. (Para 43)

       (m) Practice and Procedure – Rule of law – Judicial Propriety – ‘In-house procedure’ – Chief Justice of High Court being dissociated with investigative process – No longer viable to strictly follow the procedure instantly de novo – Chief Justice of India to decide proper procedure. (Para 44)

       Facts of the case:

       The petitioner was appointed as District Judge (entry level) by the Madhya Pradesh State Legal and Legislative Works Department, vide order dated 8.7.2011. She was posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior.

       She complained of sexual advancements, harassment and victimisation at the hands of Justice ‘A’.

       She resigned from her post and made a complaint to the President of India CJI and the CJ of the High Court.

       In furtherance of the communication received from the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the High Court constituted a two-member senior judges Enquiry Committee (one of whom was a lady judge), to make a confidential and discreet inquiry, and to submit a report. A senior lady Additional District and Sessions Judge, was nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court, for secretarial assistance of the "two-Judge Committee".

       Consequent upon the nomination of the "two-Judge Committee", the petitioner received a notice from the Secretary of the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court on 12.8.2014, requiring her to appear for a preliminary inquiry before the "two-Judge Committee" on 19.8.2014 at 10.30 a.m. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid notice vide her reply dated 14.8.2014 requesting for information, as to under what authority of law the "two- Judge Committee" had been constituted. In order to ensure, that the deliberations assigned to the Committee constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court were fair, the petitioner, through her above reply dated 14.8.2014, requested that administrative functions be withdrawn from respondent no.3 - Justice 'A'.

       She also sought the transfer of the District Judge, the District Judge (Inspection) and the District Registrar posted at Gwalior, so that her witnesses could depose freely and fairly before the "two-Judge Committee". In a response dated 14.8.2014, the petitioner was informed, that the Chief Justice of the High Court had set up the "two-member Committee" to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegations levelled against respondent no.3.

       On 19.8.2014, the petitioner submitted her second reply stating that her request for withdrawal of administrative work from respondent no.3 - Justice 'A' and her request for transfer of judicial officers from Sessions Division, Gwalior had remained unaddressed. She also pointed out, that the procedure envisaged by the Supreme Court was not being followed, inasmuch as the Chief Justice of the High Court was to conduct a discreet inquiry at his own and that she could not be required to appear before the "two-Judge Committee" for a preliminary inquiry. In support of the original complaint submitted by the petitioner, on this occasion she also enclosed a sworn affidavit, affirming the factual position expressed in her complaint.

       Finding of the Court:

       Constitution of two Judge Committee to conduct full-fledged enquiry was beyond jurisdiction of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

       Result: Petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to raise all remaining issues raised in the writ petition through a separate petition.