The three-member panel set up by the Rajya Sabha to probe allegations of sexual harassment against Justice SK Gangele of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has given the judge a clean chit.
A former Additional District and Sessions Judge had accused sitting Madhya Pradesh High Court judge Gangele J of sexual harassment.
The Inquiry Committee set up by the Rajya Sabha, headed by Justice R Banumathi, along with former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court Manjula Chellur and Senior Advocate KK Venugopal, has held that the sexual harassment charges “have not been proved” against Justice Gangele.
The Report under the The Inquiry Committee under The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 had submitted its report to the Rajya Sabha today. Chairman of the Rajya Sabha Vice President Mr. Venkaiah Naidu mentioned that the Report was made available to all the members of the house and public.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising tweeted:
As per the report, the complainant had brought to light four separate incidents in which the sitting judge allegedly made inappropriate remarks amounting to sexual harassment. She also alleged that she would get messages from the judge through the District Registrar, asking her to meet him at his residence.
Moreover, the judge had allegedly refused to sign off on her transfer as a consequence of her not visiting him at his residence. It was further alleged that he was instrumental in her being posted in a remote area in the state. As a result of this and related acts, she was forced to resign from her post of Additional District and Sessions Judge.
Back in 2014, the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had constituted a two-member Committee to look into the allegations against Gangele J. However, the complainant had challenged the constitution of this Committee in the Supreme Court, which held that the role of the Chief Justice of the High Court is limited to the first stage of the investigative process, and that he had exceeded the authority vested in him under the “In-House Procedure”.
Subsequently, the apex court constituted a three-member Committee of Justice DY Chandrachud (then Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court), former Delhi High Court Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Ajay Rastogi of the Rajasthan High Court. This Committee concluded that the material on record was insufficient to establish the charge of sexual harassment.
Then in 2015, Chairman of the Rajya Sabha and Vice-President of India Hamid Ansari had admitted an impeachment motion in the Upper House. This, after more than 50 members of the Rajya Sabha had signed a motion calling for the impeachment of the judge on grounds of sexual harassment and abuse of position. The motion was brought to the fore my MPs Sitaram Yechury, Derek O’Brien, Sharad Yadav and others.
After a few changes to its composition, the Inquiry Committee was formed to investigate the charges and grounds for removal of the MP High Court judge.
During the proceedings before the Committee, the judge denied all of the allegations, with the Committee eventually deciding in his favour. Gangele J was represented by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, and earlier Akhil Sibal. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising appeared for the complainant, whereas ASG Sanjay Jain was appointed as Amicus Curiae.
At the outset, the Committee highlighted the seriousness of the allegations and their impact on the image of the judiciary as a whole. The report states,
“An allegation of misbehaviour against a sitting judge of a constitutional Court has a cascading effect on the reputation of the judiciary as a whole. Such an allegation cannot be accepted ipso facto merely relying on the version of the complainant in absence of strong evidence or probabilities consistent with natural human conduct proving the allegation.”
Further, it was highlighted that allegations against sitting High Court judges, which may result in impeachment, need to have a higher standard of proof than usual.
“We are conscious that normally sexual harassment does not happen in public view and it is difficult to adduce any independent evidence. But impeachment proceedings cannot be equated to a departmental proceeding to adopt the standard of proof of “preponderance of probability”. The present proceedings being an impeachment proceeding for removal of a High Court Judge, higher degree of proof is required.”
The Committee relied on witness accounts and video recordings provided by the respondent judges, as well as the delay in reporting of the incidents, to conclude that the charges of sexual harassment could not be proved. It held,
“The allegations levelled by the complainant against the respondent judge are very grave and we do accept that fear of hierarchy exists in the system. But the delay in raising the issue of allegations of sexual harassment by the respondent judge raises serious doubts in our mind.”
Today, the report prepared by the Committee was tabled in the Rajya Sabha, as required under Section 4(3) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. Apart from the report, which gave a clean chit to the judge, the evidence of witnesses and other relevant documents were tabled today in the Upper House.
Read the report: