# ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE 'X' v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2014] 13 S.C.R. 300
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014
- **Bench:** Jag Dish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/additional-district-and-sessions-judge-x-v-registrar-general-high-court-of-29585
- **Pages:** 70

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 ~Art. 32 - Writ petition by
former Additional District and Sessions Judge-petitioner -
A/legation of sexual harassment at the behest of the sitting
judge of the High Court and that the procedure followed for
D inquiry not in consonance with the in-house procedure
adopted by this Court - Chief Justice of the High Court
constituted two member senior judges Enquiry Committee
to make discreet enquiry instead of making the discreet
inquiry at his own - Challenge to- Held: Chief Justice of the
E High Court travelled beyond the determinative authonty
vested in him, under stage-one of the in-house procedure -
Chief Justice of the High Court, by constituting two-Judge
Committee, commenced an in-depth probe, into the
allegations levelled by the petitioner which forms part of the
F second stage of the in-house procedure and is to be carried
out under the authority of the Chief Justice of traversed
beyond his jurisdictional authority, under the in-house
procedure- Thus, the Chief Justice of the High Court, having
assumed a firm position, in respect of certain facts contained
G in the complaint filed by the petitioner, ought not to be
associated with the in-house procedure - Proceedings
adopted by the Chief Justice of the High Court set aside -
Chief Justice of India may reinitiate the investigative process,
'under the in-house procedure, by assigning the role to Chief
H
300
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X'v. RG,HIGH COURT 301
OFM.P.
Justice of some other High Court, or alternatively, may A
himself assume the said role -Judiciary.
Judiciary-A/legations leveled against judge of superior
court through his peers- In-house proc;edure framed by this
Court consequent upon the decision rendered in C.
8
Ravichandran lyer's case - To inquire into the a/legations -
Seven steps of the in-house procedure - Manner in which
in-house procedure is to be invoked -
Explained and
elucidated.
Investigation - Investigation into a/legations against
judges- Investigative process under the in-house procedure
- Held: To consider rights of the complainant, and that of the
judge, by adopting a fair procedure, to determine the veracity
c
of a/legations - It safeguards the integrity of the judicial 0
institution- Chief Justice of India is to ensure that the process
affords safeguards, against favouritism, prejudice or bias.
Crime against women -
Sexual harassment -
Connotation - Held: Issue of sexual harassment has a variety
of fine connotations - Evaluation of a charge of sexual E
harassment, would depend on the manner in which it is
perceived - Each case would be decided on its own merits -
Its evaluation may sometimes depend upon the sensitivity
of the person concerned and also whether, the perception of F
the h~Hassed individual was known to the person accused -
Whether the perception of the harassed individual, was
conveyed to the person accused, would be very material, in
a case falling in the realm of over-sensitivity.
Disposing of the Writ petition, the Court
HELD:
1.1 With reference to the "in-house
procedure" pertaining to a judge of a High Court, the
limited authority of the Chief Justice of the concerned
G
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A High Court, is to determine whether or not a deeper
probe is required. The said determination is a part of
stage-one (comprising of the first three steps) of the "inhouse procedure". The Chief Justice of the High Court,
in the present case, traveled beyond the determinative
B authority vested in him, under stage-one of the "in-ho1.1se
procedure". The Chief Justice of the High Court, by
constituting a "two-Judge Committee", commenced an
in-depth probe, into the allegations levelled by the
petitioner. The procedure adopted by the Chief Justice
C of the High Court, forms a part of the second stage
(contemplated under steps four to seven-elucidated
herein). The second stage of the "in-house procedure"
is to be carried out, under the authority of the Chief
0 Justice of India. The Chie

## Text

_Characters 0–39,994 of 134,510. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39994 for what follows._

[2014] 13 S.C.R. 300
A
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE 'X'
B
c
v.
REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 792 OF 2014)
DECEMBER 18. 2014
[JAG DISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 ~Art. 32 - Writ petition by
former Additional District and Sessions Judge-petitioner -
A/legation of sexual harassment at the behest of the sitting
judge of the High Court and that the procedure followed for
D inquiry not in consonance with the in-house procedure
adopted by this Court - Chief Justice of the High Court
constituted two member senior judges Enquiry Committee
to make discreet enquiry instead of making the discreet
inquiry at his own - Challenge to- Held: Chief Justice of the
E High Court travelled beyond the determinative authonty
vested in him, under stage-one of the in-house procedure -
Chief Justice of the High Court, by constituting two-Judge
Committee, commenced an in-depth probe, into the
allegations levelled by the petitioner which forms part of the
F second stage of the in-house procedure and is to be carried
out under the authority of the Chief Justice of traversed
beyond his jurisdictional authority, under the in-house
procedure- Thus, the Chief Justice of the High Court, having
assumed a firm position, in respect of certain facts contained
G in the complaint filed by the petitioner, ought not to be
associated with the in-house procedure - Proceedings
adopted by the Chief Justice of the High Court set aside -
Chief Justice of India may reinitiate the investigative process,
'under the in-house procedure, by assigning the role to Chief
H
300
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X'v. RG,HIGH COURT 301
OFM.P.
Justice of some other High Court, or alternatively, may A
himself assume the said role -Judiciary.
Judiciary-A/legations leveled against judge of superior
court through his peers- In-house proc;edure framed by this
Court consequent upon the decision rendered in C.
8
Ravichandran lyer's case - To inquire into the a/legations -
Seven steps of the in-house procedure - Manner in which
in-house procedure is to be invoked -
Explained and
elucidated.
Investigation - Investigation into a/legations against
judges- Investigative process under the in-house procedure
- Held: To consider rights of the complainant, and that of the
judge, by adopting a fair procedure, to determine the veracity
c
of a/legations - It safeguards the integrity of the judicial 0
institution- Chief Justice of India is to ensure that the process
affords safeguards, against favouritism, prejudice or bias.
Crime against women -
Sexual harassment -
Connotation - Held: Issue of sexual harassment has a variety
of fine connotations - Evaluation of a charge of sexual E
harassment, would depend on the manner in which it is
perceived - Each case would be decided on its own merits -
Its evaluation may sometimes depend upon the sensitivity
of the person concerned and also whether, the perception of F
the h~Hassed individual was known to the person accused -
Whether the perception of the harassed individual, was
conveyed to the person accused, would be very material, in
a case falling in the realm of over-sensitivity.
Disposing of the Writ petition, the Court
HELD:
1.1 With reference to the "in-house
procedure" pertaining to a judge of a High Court, the
limited authority of the Chief Justice of the concerned
G
H
302
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A High Court, is to determine whether or not a deeper
probe is required. The said determination is a part of
stage-one (comprising of the first three steps) of the "inhouse procedure". The Chief Justice of the High Court,
in the present case, traveled beyond the determinative
B authority vested in him, under stage-one of the "in-ho1.1se
procedure". The Chief Justice of the High Court, by
constituting a "two-Judge Committee", commenced an
in-depth probe, into the allegations levelled by the
petitioner. The procedure adopted by the Chief Justice
C of the High Court, forms a part of the second stage
(contemplated under steps four to seven-elucidated
herein). The second stage of the "in-house procedure"
is to be carried out, under the authority of the Chief
0 Justice of India. The Chief Justice of the High Court by
constituting a "two-Judge Committee" clearly traversed
beyond his jurisdictional authority, under the "in-house
procedure". In order to ensure, that the investigative
process is fair and just, it is imperative to divest the
E concerned judge (against whom allegations have been
levelled), of his administrative and supervisory authority
and control over witnesses, to be produced either on
behalf of the complainant, or on behalf of the concerned
judge himself. The Chief Justice of the High Court is
F accordingly directed to divest respondent no.3- Justice
'N, of the administrative and supervisory control vested
in him, to the extent expressed above. The Chief Justice
of the High Court, having assumed a firm position, in
respect of certain facts contained in the complaint filed
G by the petitioner, ought not to be associated with the "in·
house procedure" in the instant 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
H
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X' v. RG,HIGH COURT 303
OFM.P.
the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, to a Chief A
Justice of some other High Court, or alternatively, the
Chief Justice of India may himself assume the said role.
The liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all the
remaining issued in the writ petition, through separate
petition. [Para 46][368-C-H; 369-A-E]
B
1.2 The "in-house procedure", did not overlook any
relevant aspect. The sensitivity ofthe matter was kept
in mind. The individual integrity of the parties was taken
care of. The parties concerned were assured, that all c
efforts would be made to unravel the truth. The
procedure devised ensured the preservation of
institutional reputation, as well. In dealing with
complaints made against sitting judges of High Courts,
the onus of recording a prima facie view, was vested with D
the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
Participation in the investigative process, at the hands
of any other judge of the same High Court, was sought
to be excluded. The exclusion of judges of the same
. Court from the investigative process, was also well E
thought out. In certain situations it may be true, that
judges of the same Court being colleagues of the
concerned judge, would endeavour to exculpate him
from his predicament. It is not as if, the position could
not be otherwise. Animosity amongst colleagues is not F
unknown. Reasons Qf competitiveness, jealousy and
· the like are known amongst colleague judges, specially
from the same High Court. By excluding judges of the
concerned High Court (as the judge complained against),
is bound to be beneficial, in both the situations. The Chief G
Justice of the High Court, being a Judge from another
State, would be shorn of any such prejudices. Moreover,
being a man on the spot, he would be most suited for
the purpose. [Para 34][355-B-G]
H
304
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A
1.3Aperusal of the "in-house procedure" applicable
to sitting judges of High Courts reveals, that the same is
compartmentalized into two stages. Through the first
stage, the prim;;1 facie veracity of the allegations,
contained in the complaint is ascertained. If so, whether
B a deeper probe is called for. The first stage does not
contemplate an in-depth examination of the allegations.
It requires merely an assessment based on the contents
of the complaint, and the response of the concerned
judge. All that the Chief Justice of the High Court is
C required to do, is to determine whether a deeper probe
is required. This is to be done, on the basis of a logical
assessment made on a consideration of the response
of the concerned Judge (with reference to the allegations
D levelled in the complaint). [Para 35][355-G-H; 356-A-C] ·
1.4 It is the second stage of the "in-house
procedure", relating to sitting judges of High Courts,
which could lead to serious consequences. The second
stage is monitored by none other, than the Chief Justice
E of India. Only if the Chief Justice of India endorses the
view expressed by the Chief Justice of the High Court,
that a deeper probe is called for, he would constitute a
"three-member Committee", and thereby take the
investigative process, to the second stage. This
F Committee is to comprise of two Chief Justices of High
Courts (other than the concerned High Court), besides
a Judge of a High Court. The second stage, postulates
a deeper probe. Even though the "three-member
G Committee" is at liberty to devise its own procedure, the
inherent requirement provided for is, that the procedure
evolved should be in consonance with the rules of
natural justice. For the first time, the authenticity of the
allegations, are to be probed, on the basis of an inquiry.
H The incumbents of the "three-member Committee",
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X' v. RG, HIGH COURT
305
OFM.P.
would have no nexus, with the concerned judge. Not
only would the concerned judge have a fair opportunity
to repudiate the allegations levelled against him, even
the complainant would have the satisfaction, that the
investigation would not be unfair. The "in-house
procedure" was devised to ensure exclusion of
favouritism, prejudice or bias. [Para 36][356-C-H]
1.5 By forwarding the complaint received by the
Chief Justice of India against respondent no.3-Justice
A
B
'A', to the Chief Justice of the High Court, the "in-house c
procedure" was sought to be put in motion. The extract
of the "in-house procedure" (applicable to sitting
Judges of High Court) reveals, that. the same is
expressed in the simplest possible words. This is
explained through "seven steps". It is apparent from the D
"seven steps", of the "in-house procedure", for sitting
High Court Judges, that the role of the Chief Justice of
the High Court, is limited to the first three steps. There
can be no doubt, that it was not open to the Chief Justice
of the High Court, either to constitute the "two-Judge E
Committee", or to require the "two-Judge Committee",
to hold an inquiry into the matter, by recording
statements of witnesses. The role of the Chief Justice
of the High Court, being limited to the first stage of the
investigative process, during which the only F
determination is, whether a prima facie case is made out
requiring a deeper probe; the Chief Justice of the High
Court had exceeded the authority vested in him under
the "in-house procedure". It is only in the second stage G
of the investigative process, that the Chief Justice of
India, is to constitute a "three-member Committee" for
holding a deeper probe, into the allegations levelled in
the complaint. That the "two-Judge Committee"
constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court, was H
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A beyond the purview of the "in-house procedure". [Paras
37, 38][357-A-C; 360-H; 361-A-E]
1.6 By not strictly abiding by the procedure
contemplated under the "in-house procedure" evolved
B by this Court, the Chief Justice of the High Court,
introduced serious infirmities in the investigative
process. These infirmities were of the nature which were
sought to be consciously avoided under the "in-house
procedure". It is apparent, that the "in-house procedure"
c contemplated an independent holistic two-stage
process. The first stage comprises of steps 'one' to
'three'. The first stage is limited to a prima facie
consideration, at the hands of the Chief Justice of the
High Court, for determining whether a deeper probe into
D the matter was required. T_he first stage of the "in-house
procedure" contemplates the implied exclusion of
colleague Judges, from the same High Court. In the
process adopted by the Chief Justice of the High Court,
he has consciously involved colleague Judges, of the
E same High Co!Jrt. This was sought to be avoided under
the "in-house procedure". Unfortunately, what Chief
Justice of the High Court has embarked upon, is not a
prima facie determination, but a holistic consideration
of the allegations. This is also wholly contrary to the "inF hou.se procedure". Th~ Chief Justice of the High Court,
has actually embarked upon steps 'four' to 'seven',
which are a part of the second stage of the "in-house
procedure". The second stage of the "in-house
G procedure" envisages a deeper probe, which is to be
monitored by the Chief Justice of India himself. If the
proceedings move to the second stage, the Chief Justice
of India, would nominate a "three-member Committee".
In the process adopted by the Chief Justice of the High
H Court, he has usurped"the investigative process,
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X' v. RG,HIGH COURT 307
OFM.P.
assigned to the "three-member Committee". The Chief A
Justice of the High Court, has himself, commenced the
deeper probe, through the "two-Judge Committee".
Furthermore, under the second stage, the inquiry is to
be conducted by two sitting Chief Justices of High
Courts, and one Judge of a High Court. An inquiry B
conducted by the "three-member Committee", in terms
of the "in-house procedure", would have a wh.olly
different impact. Not only would the concerned parties
feel reassured, that justice would be done, even the
public at large would be confident, that the outcome C
would be fair and without any prejudices. By doing so,
the Chief Justice of the High Court, ignored the wisdom
of the Committee of Judges, who devised tlie "in-house
procedure", as also, the determination of the Full Court D
of the Supreme Court of India. In the procedure adopted,
by the Chief Justice of the High Court in the instant case,
it is possible for one or the other party to feel; that he/
she may not get justice at the hands of the "two.Judge
Committee". In fact, that is exactly the position, in the E
present case. Thus, the proceedings adopted by the
Chief Justice of the High Court are set aside. [Para 39]
[361-E-H; 362-A-H; 363-A·B]
1.7 It is no longer viable, to strictly follow the "inhouse procedure" contemplated for sitting judges of the F
High Court de nova. That however, does not mean, that
it is no longer possible to determine the veracity of the
allegations levelled by the petitioner. What procedure
must be followed in the facts and circumstances of the G
instyant case, will have to be determined by the Chief
Justice of India. Therefore, it is left to the Chief Justice
of India, to take a fresh call on the matter. All that needs
to be done is, that the role assigned to the Chief Justice
of the concerned High Court, in the first stage of the H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014j 13 S.C.R.
A "in-house procedure", will now have to be assigned to
some one other than the Chief Justice of the concerned
High Court. In taking a decision on the matter, the Chief
Justice of India may assign the above role to a Chief
Justice, of some other High Court. Or alternatively, he
B may himself assume the said role. The assumption of
the role by the Chief Justice of India himself, would not
be unrealistic, as the said role is vested with the Chief
Justice of India, under the "in-house procedure", with
reference to complaints received against Chief Justices
C of High Courts. [Para 44][366-G-H; 367-A-D]
D
1.8 In view of the considerations and the findings
recorded, the general conclusions are as under:
(i) The "in-house procedure" framed by this Court,
consequent upon the decision rendered in C.
Ravichandran /yer's case can be adopted, to examine
allegations levelled against Judges of High Courts, Chief
Justices of High Courts and Judges of the Supreme
E Court of India.
(ii) The investigative process under the "in-house
procedure" takes into consideration the rights of the
complainant, and that of the concerned judge, by
F adopting a fair procedure, to determine the veracity of
allegations levelled against a sitting Judge. At the same
time, it safeguards the integrity of the judicial institution.
(iii) Even though the said procedure, should
ordinarily be followed in letter and spirit, the Chief Justice
G of India, would have the authority to mould the same, in
the facts and circumstances of a given case, to ensure
that the investigative process affords safeguards,
against favouritism, prejudice or bias.
H
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X'v. RG,HIGH COURT
309
OFM.P.
(iv) In view of the importance of the "in~house A
procedure", it is essential to bring it into public domain.
The Registry of the Supreme Court of India, is
accordingly directed, to place the same on the official
website of the Supreme Court of India. [Para 45]
[367-E-H; 368-A-B]
B
C.
Ravichandran Iyer v. ·Justice A.M.
Bhattacharjee (1995) 5 SCC 457 : 1995 (3) Suppl.
SCR 319 - relied on.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241:
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR' 404; Indira Jaising v.
Registrar General, Supreme Court (2003) 5 SCC
494: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 108 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404
referred to. Para 3
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 108
referred to. Para 25
c
D
1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 319
relied on.
Para 37,
E
39,45
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 792 of 2014.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Ms. Indira Jaising, Sr. Adv., M. L. Lahoti, Purushottam
Sharma Tripathi, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Ms. Anindita Pujari,
F
Ms. Amrita Nanda Chakravorty, Ms. Filza Moonis, Ravi
Chandra Prakash, Mukesh Kr. Singh, Amit Kumar, Advs., with
G
him for the Petitioner.
Ranjit Kumar, Solicitor General, Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.,
Ms. BinuTamta, Pankaj Pandey, DhruvTamta, Ms.Anuradha
Dutt, Ms. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Nikhil Sakhardande, Ms. Ekta
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A Kapil, Ms. Anubha Singh, Ms. Alishree Sood, Akhil Sibal,
Ms. Shruti Srivastava, Mayank Gulati, Ms. Pragya Baghel,
Advs., forthe Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGD1SH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The present writ
petition has been filed by a former Additional District and
Sessions Judge of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial
Service. The factual narration in the writ petition incorporates
C allegations of sexual harassment aimed at the petitioner, at
the behest of a sitting Judge of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh (herein after referred to as, 'the High Court'), who
has been impleaded by name as respondent no.3. The
authenticity of the allegations levelled by the petitioner, which
D have been expressly disputed by respondent no.3, would stand
affirmed or repudiated only after culmination of due process.
Such being the sensitivity of the matter, it would be
inappropriate to disclose the identity either of the petitioner or
of respondent no.3. In the title of the present writ petition, as
E also in its contents, the petitioner has been described as
Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X'. We shall refer to
her as Addl.D&SJ 'X'. This would help to preserve the dignity
of the petitioner. Insofar as respondent no.3 is concerned,
since he is a sitting Judge of the High Court, his reputation
F deserves a similar protection, we shall refer to him as Justice
'A'.
2. The averments made in the writ petition reveal that the
petitioner having practiced as an advocate for fifteen years at
G Delhi, applied for appointment by way of direct recruitment to
the Madhya Pradesh HigheF Judicial Service. On the
culmination of the process of selection, the merit list of the
selected candidates was released on 22.3.2011. The
petitioner was placed at serial no.2 in the merit list. She was
H accordingly appointed as District Judge (entry level) by the
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X' v. RG,HIGH COURT 311
OF M.P. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
Madhya Pradesh State Legal and Legislative Works A
Department, vide order dated 8. 7.2011. She was deputed for
training on 30. 7.2011 and was posted as Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Gwalior.
3. The contents of the writ petition are systematically
B
divided into various components. In the first part of the writ
petition, the petitioner endeavours to demonstrate her efficient
discharge of duties. For this, reliance has been placed on an
order passed by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior dated 9.10.2012
(while exercising powers under Sections 408 and 409 of the c
Criminal Procedure Code), whereby all sessions cases,
criminal appeals, criminal revisions and miscellaneous criminal
cases etc. pending in the Court of the 2"d Additional Sessions
Judge, were transferred to the Court of the petitioner. Relying
on the above order, it is the petitioner's contention, that her D
superiors immediately recognized her professional caliber, and
afforded her an opportunity to deal with the important and
sensitive cases. On 23.1.2013, the Sessions Judge, Gwalior,
nominated the petitioner for regular hearing and expeditious
disposal of heinous and sensational cases involving offences E
of rape, gang-rape, rape with murder etc. under the Indian
Penal Code. It is further brought out, that on 9.4.2013, the
petitioner was appointed as the President of the Vishaka
Committee (in compliance with the directions issued by this
Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 ), by
F
the District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior. It is also pointed
out, that the High Court (in exercise of the power vested in it
under Section 6(2) of the Madhya _Pradesh Dekaiti Aur
Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshotra Adhiniyam, 1981) appointed G
the petitioner as "Special Judge" for dealing with matters falling
in a defined area within the territorial jurisdiction of Gwalior
Sessions Division. It is pointed out that again, through a
notification dated 10.5.2013 (in exercise of the power under
Section 9(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the High
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014j ".3 S.C.R
A
Court desigr.ated the petitioner as "Presiding Officer" for
speedy trial of offences of rape, gang-rape, murder with rape
and other related offences. It is also the case of the petitioner,
thai the petitioner's performance came to be evaluated by the
District and Sessions Judge in a report dated 5.1.2013. It is
B submitted, tl1at thereafter in April 2013, the District Judge
(Inspection and Vigilance) inspected the civil and criminal
records and assessed the petitioner's performance.
4. The factual position with respect to the selection and
c appointment of the petitioner has not been disputed. The fact
that the petitioner was assigned .different responsibilities from
time to time is also acknowledged. It.is not necessary for us
to record the personal assessment made by the petitioner on
the basis of the afore-stated reports, suffice it to state that in
D the reply filed before this Court on behalf of the Registrar
General of the High Court (respondent no.1 ), it is
acknowledged that even though her disposal was assessed
as - average, her overall performance was graded as- very
good 'B'. It was further pointed out, that even though the
E petitioner was advised to improve inter-personal relationship
and team work skills, her overall assessment was evaluated
as - 'very good'.
S(i). The next component of the writ petition is devoted
F to the allegations levelled against respondent no.3 - Justice
'A'. It is asserted, that on 8/9-12-2013, the wife of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior called, the petitioner on her land
line. During her conversation, she informed the petitioner, that
respondent no.3 - Justice 'A', was eager that the petitioner
G should perform a dance on an "item-song", on the occasion of
ladies sangeet (on 10.12.2013) during the festivities of the
251h marriage anniversary of respondent no.3. It is also the
assertion of the petitioner, that she politely refused the invitation
for 10.12.2013 by giving out that she had prior commitments,
H for that date. It is sought to be asserted by the petitioner, that
ADDL. DIST. & SES$10NS JUDGE 'X' v. RG,HIGH COURT
313
OF M.P. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
for reasons of official protocol, she felt compelled to attend
A
the main marriage anniversary celebrations scheduled for
11.12.2013. It is pointed out, that she ventured to do so in the
company of her two daughters. It is alleged by the petitioner
that on 11.12.2013, respondPnt no.3 - Justice 'A' came close
to her and whispered in her ear, that he missed the opportunity B
of viewing her sexy and beautiful figure dancing on the floor. It
is the petitioner's assertion, that respondent No.3 also told
the petitioner, that he wished he could see he. dancing. The
petitioner claims that she was appalled by the above behaviour
of respondent no.3, and therefore, she left the party along with
C
her two daughters, with tears in her eyes.
(ii). The factual position narrated above, pertaining to the
telephonic conversation with the wife of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gwalior has been denied by respondent no.3. For D
this, respondent no.3_ has appended the affidavit of the wife of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior asAnnexure R-16 with
his _counter-affidavit: In her affidavit, it is inter alia asserted,
that she had neither called the petitioner on 8/9-12-2013, nor
had she told the petitioner that respondent no.3 - Justice 'P:,
E
was eager to watch her perform a dance on an "item-song".
The other assertions at the behest of the petitioner, narrated
in the foregoing paragraph have also been denied by
respondent no.3. It is the pointed contention of respondent
no.3, that there was no occasion for him to personally interact F
with the petitioner on 11.12.2013. It is also the assertion of
respondent no.3, that the function of 11.12.2013 was videographed, which shows that the petitioner enjoyed her dinner
and was seen talking to other invitees.
G
(iii). Addl.D&SJ 'X' has also asserted, that in January
2014, respondent no.3 had sent messages to her through the
District Registrar, asking the petitioner to meet him, at his
residence. It is the contention of the petitioner, that knowing
that respondent no.3 - Justice 'P:, usually lived alone, she
H
314
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A avoided going to his residence. As per the understanding of
the petitioner, thereafter respondent no.3 started showing
abnormally high interest in her work, and also started making
sexually coloured remarks, at her. Illustratively, referring to the
occasion of a marriage party of a judicial officer on 22.2.2014,
B it is asserted, that respondent no.3 in the presence of the
petitioner's 16 years old daughter, told her that "although your
work is very good, but you are far more beautiful than your
work". It is contended, that he further went on to say, that looking
at the petitioner, one does not desire, even to blink ones eyes.
C It is averred, that the above remarks were made, while
respondent no.3-Justice 'fl!. sized up the petitioner from head
to toe. It is also the pointed assertion of the petitioner, that
while making the above remarks, respondent no.3 - Justice
0
'fl!., put his hand on her back. It is sought to be asserted, that
the above behaviour of respondent no.3, discomforted the
petitioner as well as her daughter. It is also pointed out, that
the petitioner indicated to respondent no.3, that his advances
were not welcome. Thereafter, the petitioner along witb her
E daughter, left the marriage party.
(iv). The factual position as recorded in the foregoing
paragraph has been denied by respondent no.3 in the counteraffidavit filed by him. It is also asserted, that respondent no.3
did not even meet the petitioner, at the aforesaid marriage
F party. It is sought to be asserted in the counter-affidavit filed
on behalf of respondent no.3, that.he is in possession of the
videography of the marriage function in question, which can
be produced by him.
G
(v). Another instance referred to by the petitioner in the
writ petition, relates to a farewell party organized by the District
Judiciary, on the occasion of the retirement of a Judge from
the Gwalior Sessions Division. It is asserted, that all sitting
Judges of the Gwalior Bench of the High Court, had been
H invited. On the said occasion, it is asserted, that respondent
ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X' v. RG,HIGH COURT
315
OF M.P. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
no.3 - Justice 'P\, continuously stared at the petitioner. The A
petitioner claims, that sensing the attitude of respondent no.3
and given his past conduct, the petitioner left the farewell party
before respondent no.3 could make any advances at her.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent B
no.3, the facts narrated in the foregoingparagraph_have been
expressly denied. It has been asserted, that respondent no.3
had never inter-acted with the petitioner personally, except when
the petitioner had herself made three calls to him for her own
problems.
C
7(i). The next component of the narration in the writ
petition deals with the consequences which the petitioner had
to suffer for not responding to respondent no.3- Justice A's
advances. First and foremost, it is asserted, that respondent 0
no.3 started subjecting the petitioner to intense surveillance
and harassment, in his capacity as Administrative Judge of
Sessions Division, Gwalior from April 2014 onwards. It is
submitted, that the aforesaid surveillance/harassment was
effectuated through the District Judge, the Distric;t Judge E
(Inspection), and the District Registrar. It is pointed out, that
the District Judge and the District Judge (Inspection) visited
the petitioner's court room with unusual frequency.
Sometimes, on an houri)' basis. At times, within a few minutes
of her commencing court work. Sometimes, minutes after her F
rising for lunch. At other times, minutes after her resuming
co.urt work after lunch. And also after the petitioner had risen
at the end of the day's work. It is also asserted, that the District
Judge, Gwalior would depute his staff to check the petitioner
during court working hours. On certain occasions, this G
happened even during in-camera trials. When. deputed by the
District Judge, his staff, at times, would even· snatch boarddiaries of cases pending in her court. It is the petitioner's
contention, that no fault could ever be found insofar as the
discharge of duties and the responsibilities of the petitioner H
316
S.UPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 13 S.C.R.
A
were concerned. It is the contention of the petitioner. that ail
these inspections were not carried, for the purpose
contemplated under the Madhya Pradesh Rules (Crirninai)
Inspection of Criminal Courts (for short, 'the Rules'). Relying
on Rule 703 of the Rules, it is asserted, th8t these actions
B were only for harassing the petitioner.
(ii). In the context of harassment, it is also averred in the
writ petition, that the petitioner availed casual leave in May
2014, to attend a family event in New Delhi. During the above
c leave period, a stenographer attached to the petitioner's court,
was posted elsewhere for a full day, on the instructions of the
District Judge. It is pointed out, that this was done despite the
express request made by the petitioner to the Court Manager,
that the concerned stenographer had to type several judgments,
D which the petitioner had dictated, before proceeding on leave.
Even otherwise, it is pointed out, that according to the orders
of the District Judge (dated 25.4.2014 ), such posting is
permissible only for half a day. On account of the above
interference in the discharge of her official functioning, the
E petitioner addressed a complaint dated 12.5.2014 to the
District Judge against the Court Manager. In her complaint,
the petitioner also highlighted the fact that the Court Manager
usually refused to provide alternative staff to the petitioner, when
staff attached to the petitioner was on leave. According to the
F
petitioner, rather than taking action against the Court Manager,
the District Registrar issued a notice to the concerned
stenographer, asking him to show cause why he had not
disclosed the extent of pending dictation work, with reference
G to the petitioner's court. The concerned stenographer was
asked to file his reply, within three days. It is averred, that the
petitioner again approached the District Judge on the above
issue. Rather than appreciating· the predicament of the
petitioner, the District Judge informed the petitioner, that if she
H said anything, he would spoil her confidential report. It is also
ADDL. DiST. & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X' v. RG,HIGH COURT
317
OF M.P. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
averred, that the District Judge advised her to make a A
complaint to the Administrative Judge (respondent no.3) if she
had any problem with the system. According to the petitioner,
given aforesaid circumstances, she contacted respondent no.3
- Justice 'A' on his mobile phone on 30.5.2014. Respondent
no.3, it is averred, informed her, that he could not speak to her B
as he was not in station.
(iii). Another instance of harassment and victimization
pointed out by the petitioner emerges from the fact, that the
peon provided to the petitioner at her residence was diagnosed c
with a likelihood of cancer on 12.5.2014. The concerned peon
sought leave for treatment, at Mumbai. Despite several oral
requests, no substitute was provided to the petitioner.
Therefore, on 20.5.2014, the. petitioner sent a letter to the
District Judge, Gwalior, requesting him to provide a peon at D
her residence, out of the surplus staff. Even though the petitioner
was entitled to a full time peon at her residence, on 22.5.2014,
the District Judge made provision for a temporary peon for
two hours (from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.).
(iv). In order to further demonstrate victimization, it is
pointed out, that the petitioner was suddenly and
unceremoniously transferred mid-session on 8.7.2014. It is
further pointed out, that general transfers are made every year,
E
in March/ April. It is the case of the petitioner, that when annual
F
general transfers were rnade in 2014, the petitioner had not
completed the stipulated tenure of service, and accordingly,
· was not subjected to transfer. Mid-session transfer, according
to the petitioner, is almost impermissible, and as such is
extremely rare, and is effected only for compelling reasons. In G
order to demonstrate the assertion of victimization, it is pointed
out, that the petitioner was transfe~red to Sid hi, a remote place
in Madhya Pradesh. According to the petitioner for her posting,
Sidhi was deliberately chosen, to prevent her husband from
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 13 S.C.R.
A visiting her on week ends, because of its non-connectivity. It
is also pointed out, that Sidhi was chosen because the area is
well known to be naxal affected and it would be difficult for the
petitioner to work, at that station. It was also pointed out, that
the said transfer was in violation of the transfer guidelines/policy
B of the High Court. (guidelines/policy appended to the petition,
as Annexure P-27). On the very next day, after the receipt of
the transfer order dated 8.7.2014, i.e., 9.7.2014, the petitionerAddl.D&SJ 'X', addressed a representation to the Registrar
General of the High Court, seeking eight months extension.
C The aforesaid extension was sought because the petitioner's
daughter was to take Board examinations of Class XI I. It was
also pointed out, that under the transfer policy/guidelines, in
case daughter of a judicial officer is to take Board/University
D examinations, the officer is not to be transferred till the end of
the academic session. Having submitted the aforesaid
representation, it is the case of the petitioner, that she contacted
respondent no.3-Justice '/!\,in his capacity as Administrative
Judge of her Sessions Division, and pleaded with him that her
E transfer be deferred for the sake of her daughter, who was to
take the Class XII Board examination. In the pleadings the
petitioner asserted, that respondent no.3 mockingly reacted
to the petitioner's request by telling her that she had not fulfilled
his desires, she had not visited his residence alone to meet
F him even once, and therefore, this order of transfer was before
her. He further told the petitioner, that he would finish her career
complete·ly. It is submitted that the petitioner's representation
dated 9.7.2014, was declined on 11.7.2014.
G
8. All the facts narrated in the foregoing paragraph have
been denied by respondent no.3 in his counter-affidavit. In
response to the above averments, it is denied that respondent
no.3 ever issued any instructions to the District Judge, District
Judge (Vigilance) or the District Registrar in regard to
H surveillance of the professional work of the petitioner. It is
ADDL. DIST. & SES$10NS JUDGE 'X' v. RG,HIGH COURT 319
OF M.P. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
denied, that the actions of respondent no. 3, were responsible A
for the petitioner's harassment. Justice 'P\ has denied having
ever spoken to the officers referred to by the petitioner, with
reference to the petitioner, on any of the issues raised by her.
On the allegation of the petitioner's intentional transfer to Sid hi
in July, 2014, the Registrar General of the High Court has filed
B
an affidavit dated 17 .11.2014 acknowledging, that the exercise
of annual transfers was carried out in March, 2014, but the
petitioner was transferred in July, 2014. It is sought to be
explained, that atthe relevant time, the Transfer Committee of
the High Court comprised of two senior Judges, which C
recommended the transfer of two Additional District &
Sessions Judges, namely, Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Shri
Rajeev Kumar Singh, to Sidhi in March 2014. The
recommendation of the Committee was accepted by the Chief 0 .
Justice of the High Court, whereupon the said officers were
transferred to Sidhi. Reciprocally, no Additional District and
Sessions Judge was transferred out of Sidhi, at that juncture.
The above transfers had been made on the basis of a request
made by the District and Sessions Judge, Sid hi to handle the
E
huge pendency of cases at Sid hi. Despite the transfer of two
Additional District and Sessions Judges referred to above,
the District arid Sessions Judge, Sid hi made another request
through his communication dated 9.6.2014 to post another two
Additional District and Sessions Judges, at Sidhi. This F
requirement expressed by the District and Sessions Judge,
Sidhi was considered by the Transfer Committee, along with
similar other requests from other Sessions Divisions. On a
fresh consideration, the Transfer Committee recommended
the transfer of 28 judicial officers including 6 Additional District G
& Sessions Judges. The Chief Justice of the High Court
approved the recommendations made by the Transfer
Committee. The transfer of the petitioner-Addl.D&SJ 'X' to
Sidhi accordingly materialized. It is submitted that all the
H
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS .
[2014] 13 S:C.R.
A transfers, including that of the petitioner, were made in
administrative exigencies, and not on extraneous
consideration. Insofar as the representation made by the
petitioner, dated 9.7.2014 seeking cancellation/deferment of
order of her transfer is concerned, it is pointed out, that the
B same was placed before the Transfer Committee. The Transfer
Committee, vide its resolution dated 11.7.2014, recommended
the rejection of the representation. The said recommendation
was approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court on
11.7.2014 itself. With reference to the petitioner's
C representation dated 11.7.2014, it is pointed out, thatthe same
was also placed before the Transfer Committee. The Transfer
Committee vide its resolution dated 14.7.2014, recommendecj
the rejection of the second representation.
The
0
recommendation made by the Transfer Committee, was again
approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court on 14.7.2014.
It is pointed out, that on the very next day, i.e., 15.7 .2014, the
petitioner tendered her resignation.
9(i).