2014 Supreme(SC) 1076

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

Headnote:Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013–Section 9–Sexual harassment of lady Judicial Officer at behest of a sitting Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh–Each case will have to be decided on its own merits–Whether perception of harassed individual was conveyed to person accused, would be very material, in a case falling in realm of over-sensitivity–In that it would not be open to him thereafter to defend himself by projecting that he had not sexually harassed person concerned because in his understanding alleged action was unoffending–Existence of “in-house procedure” is now an established means for inquiring into allegations levelled against a judge of a Superior Court, through his peers–It is a confidential inquiry for institutional credibility under charge of Chief Justice of India and its affairs are to be kept out of public domain–Proceedings under such procedure being sensitive, are required to be inaccessible to third parties–It is impermissible to publicly discuss conduct of a sitting judge or to deliberate upon performance of his duties and even on/of Court behaviour, in public domain. (Paras 17, 25 and 26)

       Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013–Section 9–An individual who subjects himself/herself to jurisdiction of an authority, cannot turn around to find fault with it at a later juncture–If there is a fault same should be corrected before one accepts to submit to jurisdiction of concerned authority–Those who are liable to be affected by outcome of “inhouse procedure”, have right to seek judicial redressal, on account of a perceived irregularity–Irregularity may be on account of violation of contemplated procedure or even because of contemplated bias or prejudice–It may be on account of impropriety–Challenge can extend to all subjects on which judicial review can be sought–”in-house procedure” applicable to sitting Judges of High Court is compartemntalized into two stages–Through first stage, prima facie veracity of allegations contained in complaint is ascertained–First stage does not contemplate an in-depth examination of allegations–It requires merely an assessment based on contents of complaint and response of concerned Judge–All that Chief Justice of High Court is required to do is to determine whether a deeper probe is required–This is to be done on the basis of a logical assessment made on a consideration of response of the concerned Judge (with reference to allegations levelled in complaint–It is second stage of “in-house procedure” relating to sitting judges of High Courts which could lead to serious consequences. Second stage is monitored by none other than Chief Justice of India–Only if Chief Justice of India endorses view expressed by Chief Justice of High Court that a deeper probe is called for, he would constitute a “three-member Committee” and thereby take investigative process to second stage–This Committee is to comprise of two Chief Justices of High Courts (other than concerned High Court), besides a Judge of a High Court–Second stage postulates a deeper proble–Even though “three-member Committee” is at liberty to devise its own procedure, inherent requirement provided for is that procedure evolved should be in consonance with rules of natural justice–”in-house procedure” was devised to ensure exclusion of favouritism, prejudice or bias. (Paras 26, 35 and 36)

       Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013–Section 9–With reference to “in-house procedure” pertaining to a judge of a High Court, limited authority of Chief Justice of concerned High Court is to determine whether or not a deeper probe is required–Such determination is a part of stage-one of “in-house procedure”–Chief Justice of High Court, by constituting a “two-Judge Committee”, commenced an in-depth probe into allegations levelled by petitioner–Procedure adopted by Chief Justice of High Court forms a part of second stage–Second stage of “in-house procedure” is to be carried out under authority of Chief Justice of india. Chief Justice of High Court by constituting a “two-Judge Committee” clearly traversed beyond his jurisdictional authority, under “in-house procedure”–In order to ensure that investigative process is fair and just, it is imperative to divest 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 complainant or on behalf of concerned Judge himself. Chief Justice of High Court directed to divest Justice ‘A’, of administrative and supervisory control vested in him to that extent–Chief Justice of High Court, having assumed a firm position in respect of certain facts contained in complaint filed by petitioner, ought not to be associated with ‘inhouse procedure” in present case–Chief Justice of India may reinitiate investigative process, under ‘in-house procedure” by vesting authority required to be discharged by Chief Justice of concerned High Court, to a Chief Justice of some other High Court, or alternatively, Chief Justice of india may himself assume said role. (Para 46)

       (1997)6 SCC 241–Referred.