Judge Sexual harassment: SC directs re-initiation of investigation, refrains MP Chief Justice from associating with investigation

The Supreme Court today held that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) may re-initiate investigation in the case pertaining to alleged sexual harassment of a District Judge by a sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (MP High Court). The Court also directed that the MP High Court Chief Justice should not be associated with the investigation for “having assumed a firm position, in respect of certain facts contained in the complaint filed by the petitioner”..The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices JS Khehar and Arun Mishra..Senior Advocate Indira Jaising had appeared for the victim. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar had represented the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Harish Salve appeared for the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented the accused judge..The Court has left it to the discretion of the CJI whether the fresh investigation should now be held under the supervision of the CJI or the Chief Justice of any other High Court. With respect to the investigation the Court held the following:.“The Chief Justice of the High Court, having assumed a firm position, in respect of certain facts contained in the complaint filed by the petitioner, ought not to be associated with the “in-house procedure” in the present case. In the above view of the matter, the Chief Justice of India may reinitiate the investigative process, under the “in-house procedure”, by vesting the authority required to be discharged by the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, to a Chief Justice of some other High Court, or alternatively, the Chief Justice of India may himself assume the said role.”.Observing that the “in – house procedure” laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of C Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice AM Bhatacharjee can be used to examine allegations against judges of High Courts and Supreme Court, the Court directed the Supreme Court registry to publish the same on the website of the Supreme Court..The Court also observed that in the present case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court judge by constituting a two judge committee to investigate the matter exceeded the authority vested in him under the in – house procedure as that could be carried out only under the authority of the CJI..The Court further directed that the accused judge should be divested of his “administrative and supervisory authority and control over witnesses” to ensure that the investigative process is fair and just..Interestingly, the Court in its judgment has also referred to an incident which happened during the hearing in which Senior Advocate Harish Salve had referred to Senior Advocate Indira Jaising’s “interjections” as ‘delightful”. Jaising had objected to it on the ground that it was “sexually coloured”. Referring to the incident, the Court in its judgment has stated the following: .“Having given our thoughtful consideration to the response, of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we may only say, that she may well be right. There is a lot to be learnt, from what she innocuously conveyed. Her sensitivity to the issue, one may confess, brought out to us, a wholly different understanding on the subject. It is, therefore, that we have remarked above, that the evaluation of a charge of sexual harassment, would depend on the manner in which it is perceived. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits.” .The Supreme Court had earlier gagged the media from reporting the proceedings relating to the case..Read the full judgment below.