Nishka Srinivas Veluvali
Published On: February 11, 2022 at 17:54 IST
The Supreme Court reinstated a woman Additional District and Sessions Judge who was compelled to resign after she had alleged the sitting Judge of the Madhya Pradesh high Court of sexual harassment.
The Court among all the other matters, first sought to Order the reinstatement of the Petitioner as AD & SJ from her date of resignation i.e. 15 July 2014.
Noting that the Petitioner’s resignation was not a voluntary act, the Bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai dismissed the Order issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government, Law and Legislative Affairs Department of accepting her resignation letter and Ordered her reinstatement along with the continuity of service and all the consequential reliefs.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, representing the Petitioner, had implored the Bench to consider the plight of the Petitioner who was constrained to choose between her duties as a Judicial officer and duties as a mother.
She further stated that compelling a woman to make such decision is violation to the principles put down in the Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
She also informed the Court that the Petitioner received her transfer order as a response to her fight against the sexual harassment by the then sitting High Court Judge, who was also her senior authority.
The Court observed that the Petitioner’s daughter is studying in the 12 Class and her husband had to stay in Delhi to look upon his aged parents and in that situation, she was handed her transfer order.
The Petitioner had submitted to the Transfer Committee to consider her plight of moving to another city with her daughter and especially to a Category “C” city where her daughter would not receive quality education but was still rejected.
Thus, the Court stated that, “The petitioner was a Judicial Officer and a mother too. The Judicial Officer in her must have been battling with the mother in her. On one hand, was her career as a Judicial Officer; on the other hand, was the possibility of her daughter’s educational prospects and career coming into jeopardy, if she shifted to the place of posting at Sidhi. A possibility of her mind engrossed with a feeling, that she was subjected to injustice by the very Institution of Judiciary, cannot be ruled away”.