By Deepika Sarma
Remember that Madhya Pradesh High Court judge accused of sexually harassing a junior colleague? The one who allegedly made sexually coloured remarks about a female sessions judge in Gwalior and invited her to dance to an “item song” at a lavish party to celebrate his wedding anniversary? And then allegedly transferred her to a far-flung Naxal-affected district when she didn’t respond to his attention? The judge against whom impeachment proceedings had been initiated for sexual harassment for the first time in India’s history?
A three-judge committee was set up to look into the sessions judge’s allegations, but found last month that evidence was “insufficient” to prove sexual harassment charges. It said the “complainant herself in regard to the three alleged incidents (of sexual harassment) is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.” And the High Court judge was found to be “ambivalent and evasive about facts which are within his knowledge”.
In its report, in which it refers to the High Court judge as “Justice A”, the committee further said:
Justice A has completely glossed over the basic grievance of the complainant in regard to the harassment which was being meted out to her specifically by the district registrar. Justice A’s statement that he was apprised by the complainant on 30 May 2014 only in respect of her problem relating to the peon is belied by his own assertion in the letter dated 4 August 2014 to the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court that the complainant had apprised him of her grievance in regard to the behaviour of the district registrar; that Justice A had called up the district judge and had enquired into the matter.
An adverse inference must therefore be drawn that Justice A, who was duly apprised of the harassment which a probationary judicial officer was facing at the hands of the District Registrar, chose to adopt an ambivalent position and while making a specific deposition on oath before the Committee, has not placed a full and truthful version of facts.
Interestingly, the three-member in-house committee set up by Chief Justice of India HL Dattu to look “deeper” into the allegations includes Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Dhananjaya Chandrachud, who headed the panel, Delhi High Court Chief Justice G. Rohini and Rajasthan High Court judge Ajay Rastogi. According to the Vishaka guidelines on sexual harassment passed by the Supreme Court, a workplace should have a Complaints Committee to hear cases of sexual harassment headed by a woman, and not less than half of its members should be female.
But it isn’t over yet for the Madhya Pradesh High Court judge. After 58 MPs submitted a petition to Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairperson Hamid Ansari seeking the judge’s impeachment, a three-member committee was set up to look into the charges. According to Indian Express, they are still probing the allegations.
And yet, astonishingly, he’s been given what the media has been calling a “clean chit”. Go figure.
(Image credit: “3D Judges Gavel” by stockmonkey.com, CC BY 2.0.)