POSH Updates – Ruling States to Flirt with a Junior not Acceptable for a Judge

Recently, the Supreme Court refused to “entertain a petition” filed by a former judge from Madhya Pradesh, refuting the case filed by a junior on allegations of sexual harassment. The counsel on behalf of the petitioner read out the inappropriate Whatsapp messages that were sent out by the judge to the lady judicial officer. The bench was led by the Chief Justice of India, and the bench showed a strong sign of disapproval on the conduct of the judge. The counsel further argued that flirtatious behaviour, or improper conduct to any person in the workplace would make it an “in-conducive” work environment under the PoSH Act.

Though the woman had withdrawn the complaint, she had filed under the PoSH Act, and pursuant to this the counsel argued that the proceedings are not maintainable by the High Court, the bench strongly put forth that while the petitioner retracted the complaint for personal issues,  the High Court must take suo moto cognizance. A suo moto cognizance refers to any action taken by the court based on their own apprehension towards a particular situation.

The petitioner explicitly admitted that he had sent those Whatsapp messages in front of the bench. The Court was hellbent on the fact that they wanted to make things right, and make it clear that no improper conduct will be tolerated in the judicial field, especially by those authorities who hold such high offices.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Ungender (@ungender.in)

“Every misdemeanor may not constitute a misconduct. I might have gone overboard. It is a private conversation, after all” argued the counsel for the petitioner.

The CJI mentioned that that Court had interest in only doing “departmental enquiries”. The counsel of the petitioner had put forth that this case was filed against the petitioner when he was considered for an elevation to the High Court, the CJI responded that every case must be dealt only with its respective merits.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Ungender (@ungender.in)

The Bench finally recommended that the petitioner challenge the proceedings and retract the petition. In September 2020, the Supreme Court “stayed the proceedings”.

In conclusion, one thing that remained static throughout the case was that the Court was extremely unhappy with the unprofessional behaviour expressed by the judge, and therefore, ensured that action was taken.

Written by: Tharika Sai

Ungender Insights is the product of our learning from advisory work at Ungender. Our team specializes in advising workplaces on workplace diversity and inclusion. Write to us at contact@ungender.in to understand how we can partner with your organization to build a more inclusive workplace.