Important points:
When a point which is, ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Instant public interest writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of quo warranto and remove the 2nd respondent - M.C.Josephine, Chairperson, Kerala Women's Commission, N.H.47, Thiruvananthapuram, from the office of the Chairperson, Kerala Women's Commission.

(ii) To direct the 1st respondent - State of Kerala, to act on Exhibit- P3 complaint dated 8.6.2020 and initiate proceedings under Section 11 of Kerala Women's Commission Act, 1990, and remove the 2nd respondent from the office of Chairperson, Kerala Women's Commission, by issue of writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction;”

2. Shorts facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

The grievance of the petitioner is that 2nd respondent, who is the Chairperson of Kerala Women's Commission, has refused to perform the functions bestowed upon her, several times, declaring that the incidents relating to party members of CPl(M) need not be looked into or enquired upon, as the party itself is police and the Court, that the party machinery has methods and procedures to take care of complaints relating to the party members, and in spite of the fact that her actions have attracted Sections 11(e) and (f) of Kerala Women's Commission Act, the Government is refusing to remove her from the office. Petitioner has pointed out that as per the provisions of the Kerala Women's Commissions Act, 1990, Women's Commission is constituted to improve the status of women in the State and to inquire into unfair practices affecting women. Hence, as per the provisions of the Act, the Commission is bound to inquire into any unfair practice affecting women, if any such incident comes to their knowledge. If the Commission refuses to act on any such incidents of unfair practice that is freely available on the public domain and which is in the knowledge of the Commission, the Commission can be said to have refused to act, as provided in Section 11(1)(e) of the Act. As far as the 2nd respondent is concerned, she was appointed to the post of Chairperson because of the position she is holding in CPl(M) viz. its central committee member. She has openly stated on many occasions that she was appointed by CPl(M) as the member, and that she is obliged to the party for this appointment.

There were several occasions after the 2nd respondent has been appointed as the Chairperson, where the Commission refused to act against incident of unfair practice. One of such occasions was, a complaint made against a CPl(M) MLA on 14.08.2018 by a woman party member. The CPl(M) has issued a public statement acknowledging the receipt of the complaint against the CPl(M) MLA and the entire media reported on several days about the sexual harassment alleged in complaint by the woman against the MLA. But, the 2nd respondent dismissed the charges of sexual harassment stating that mistakes do happen. She has also stated that "we are all human beings, mistakes do happen. People inside the party may also have committed such mistakes". She has further stated that the Commission has not initiated any action as the woman has not filed any complaint. She has also stated that Commission is not in a position to register a suo motu case as they don't have the basic details like nature of complaints. She has also said that the CPl(M) would deal with this case internally as "that is up to the party to decide. The Marxist party will have their own system of dealing with these complaints; it is not a new thing. Since its inception the party has handled such complaints"

On 06.06.2020 the 2nd respondent again responded, to the queries made by the press, regarding another incident where the Commission refused to act, as follows ”My party CPI(M). l may be the Chairperson of Women's Commission. But, l have grown through my party. My party has taken strict stand. l know the incident you are mentioning. In that incident, the family told me that they need action by the party