Sexual Harassment: MP District judge moves SC against 3-judge Panel’s findings

The former Additional District and Sessions Judge, who had accused sitting Madhya Pradesh High Court judge, SK Gangele of sexual harassment, has approached the Supreme Court for the second time..This time around, she is challenging the findings of the three-judge panel which had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges levelled by the District judge..In a petition filed through Advocate Devadatt Kamat and settled by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, the petitioner has come down heavily on the report of the Panel and also the Chief Justice of India for having accepted the report submitted by the Panel and closed the case..The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that she was not properly heard by the Panel, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. In her petition she has submitted that,.“….the Report of the Committee exonerating the Respondent No.2 of charges of sexual harassment is replete with self contradictions; flies in the face of the well settled principles of natural justice and is completely contrary to the evidence on record which unequivocally point out to the sexual misdemeanours of Respondent No.2.”.She has alleged in her petition that she was not supplied with any of the documents submitted by the accused to the Panel and the enquiry proceedings are vitiated and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. As per the petition,.“… whilst the Petitioner’s documents and version was supplied to the Respondent, the Respondent’s documents as stated hereinbefore were not supplied to the Petitioner. .….even the arguments made by Respondent no.2 were made in the absence of the Petitioner and the Petitioner had no opportunity to even rebut the same. The Respondent No.2 was heard on 11.04.2015 and the Petitioner was heard on 12.04.2015…..…. the deposition of the Petitioner was not even recorded in writing by the Committee and the Petitioner is unaware how the Committee appreciated the 6 hour deposition. It is submitted that this was absolutely crucial and essential in the present enquiry...…the earlier two-Judges Committee constituted on 08.08.2014 had in fact summoned the Petitioner’s husband and her daughter. The non-summoning of the aforesaid witnesses by the 3 member Committee is fatal to the Report.”.Besides these, the Petitioner has also called in question the genuineness of the photographs and video recordings which were relied upon by the Panel. She has claimed that,.“… the photographs as well as the video footage produced by Respondent no.2 were morphed and doctored. At time of the enquiry, these documents were not even disclosed to the Petitioner. .…..in the observation made on page 58 of the Report, it is noted ‘the photographs also indicate that the complainant is seen at various stages of event including over dinner’ is extremely shocking given that it is apparent that these photographs are in fact morphed i.e in one of the photographs, it may be seen that the Petitioner in the same photographs is seen at two different places in the same photograph..…. the correct and entire original footage of the video was not made available to the Committee, the Committee was not in a position to base its findings on the facts.”.The Petitioner has submitted that since no original footage of the video purported to have been submitted by the accused was summoned by the Committee, the report is liable to be set aside..She has also submitted that the conditions precedent for a free and unbiased enquiry did not exist in that judicial work was not withdrawn from the accused. Consequently, he continued to be in a dominant position capable of intimidating witnesses..The Petitioner has further submitted that the Chief Justice of India ought to have constituted a further enquiry instead of accepting the report, having regard to the fact that the Committee could not come to any conclusion due to insufficient material..Based on the above, she has prayed for setting aside the report and also for quashing the order of the CJI accepting the impugned report..She has also prayed for issuance of.“…an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the Respondent No. 2 has committed acts of misconduct in that he has sexually harassed and victimized the Petitioner,”.On August 26 last year, the district judge had approached the Supreme Court seeking an enquiry into her allegations, and a quashing of the committee constituted by the Madhya Pradesh Chief Justice, MR Khanwilkar..The matter was heard by a bench of Justices JS Khehar and Arun Mishra, with Senior counsel Indira Jaising appearing for her. Harish Salve had represented the MP High Court, while Kapil Sibal appeared for the accused High Court judge..In December, the Supreme Court delivered its findings, a fairly critical view on the procedure adopted by the Madhya Pradesh Chief Justice, MR Khanwilkar. The court directed the re-initiation of the investigation, this time as per the “in-house procedure” framed by the court in C Ravichandran Iyer..Subsequently, a panel headed by then Chief Justice of Karnataka, DH Waghela had investigated the matter and suggested a deeper enquiry. This is how the 3-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud and comprising Delhi High Court Chief Justice Rohini and Rajasthan High Court judge Ajay Rastogi was formed. And it is this panel that had found “insufficient evidence” to find the High Court judge guilty of sexual harassment..At the same time, the panel had not completely exonerated the High Court judge. Indian Express had reported that the panel had held that the judge was, “ambivalent and evasive about facts which are within his knowledge”.