New Delhi: The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday told the apex court that the “impulsive” decision of the former woman judicial officer cannot be termed as “coercive”. She had resigned after an inquiry into her sexual harassment allegations leveled against a high court judge.
The top court was hearing a petition filed by a woman judicial officer seeking her reinstatement. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Registrar General of the High Court, told the Supreme Court that if a person faces irregular and unfair transfer, the entire institution cannot be blamed for it.
read also
“Merely an unreasonable transfer cannot be a valid ground for seeking to declare that I was tortured and had to resign,” Mehta said before a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai. The officer further said that a judicial officer cannot take decisions impulsively, as his main job is to take decisions without being influenced by any circumstance. “If only mid-term transfer of an officer with uncomfortable family circumstances is considered to be a substantial pressure on the employee, no organization can take any administrative decision,” Mehta said.
Mehta said, “My friend has relied on western jurisprudence. But our jurisprudence should not be influenced by western jurisprudence.” On this, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, strongly objected to the ‘nationalist’ attitude of the SG towards jurisprudence. Jaising said before the bench, “I am an internationalist and I will look for light everywhere, I will place the judgments of various courts before you. It is up to you whether you accept it or not.”
He also expressed displeasure over the solicitor general terming the petitioner as “sentimental” and said it was a conservative argument. The High Court judge against whom the woman judicial officer made allegations of sexual harassment was found not guilty by a Rajya Sabha-appointed committee to probe the allegations in December 2017.
In her petition, the woman has stated that the High Court has overlooked the categorical finding of the Judges’ Inquiry Committee report dated December 15, 2017 that the resignation of the petitioner from the post of Additional District Judge on July 15, 2014 was taken in unbearable circumstances. Told. The petition said that the inquiry committee of judges had said that “the petitioner be reinstated in service as he had resigned under pressure”. (agency)