Min questions judgement of SC Collegium

The Centre has placed the Supreme Court Collegium in the dock over recommending the name of a district judge for elevation to the Karnataka High Court without carrying out a transparent enquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment against him.

After the senior most judge of the Supreme Court Collegium Justice Jasti Chelameswar complained to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) about the manner in which Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad recently wrote to the Karnataka High Court Chief Justice to initiate enquiry against district judge P Krishna Bhatt, the Law Minister has justified the reason for questioning the Collegium’s recommendation.

Bhatt, facing sexual harassment charges by a woman law officer, was recently cleared by the Collegium for a promotion following an enquiry by Karnataka High Court Chief Justice. However, in a letter to Chief justice of India Dipak Mishra, Prasad raised concerns over the way “discreet enquiry” was conducted by the Karnataka CJ on the complaint against Bhatt and the fact that he was given a clean chit without calling the complainant woman officer for enquiry.

Justice Chelameswar had recently written a letter to the CJI taking exception to the Union Law Ministry writing to the Karnataka High Court Chief Justice seeking an enquiry into allegations against a judge whose name was cleared twice by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment as High Court judge.

 “I am writing to you to bring some very important issues related to the case to your kind notice for appropriate redressal and action. This issue has assumed critical importance and relevance again in view of the letter reportedly written by Justice J Chelameswar, senior most judge of the Supreme Court, released in the media that the executive is deliberately blocking the appointment of Shri P Krishna Bhat, and seeking to undermine the authority of judiciary,” Prasad wrote.

“You will appreciate that a complaint of such a serious nature against a recommendee for the exalted and high position of High Court Judge required handling in a manner to inspire confidence in all the sides, particularly the woman complainant, and thereby establish the innocence of the officer complained against. Such a summary enquiry in a complaint involving allegations of sexual harassment of a subordinate judicial officer by her superior raises very serious questions,” Prasad said in his letter.

“It is incumbent upon both the high judiciary and executive to apply the highest standards of transparency and judiciousness in making such recommendations and appointments,” Prasad wrote. He maintained that the Supreme Court has alluded to these high precepts and professional standards to be kept in mind while making appointments as judges of high courts in NJAC Case and the case relating to Justice Karnan. “It is, therefore, our bounden duty and responsibility towards the citizens of our country that we jointly uphold these sacred and noble values,” the Minister said.

He added that unsatisfied with the “discreet” probe the woman officer in a fresh representation in December 2017 to the President of India and the Prime Minister has reiterated her request for a fair and just enquiry and has mentioned that she has not been called upon even once before any enquiry committee to present her side of the story.

The Law Minister also raised two specific issues for the CJI and the Supreme Court Collegium “in the fervent hope that these would be addressed appropriately before we move further in the case of appointment of Shri P Krishna Bhat as judge of Karnataka High Court”.

The first issue was whether a discreet enquiry, even by a HC CJ, could ever be considered as a fair, sufficient and conclusive enquiry in a matter so sensitive of sexual harassment without adhering to the manner, procedure and gender of the enquiry officer in accordance with the highest standards of fairness and natural justice, as was laid down by the top court in Vishaka’s case.

“This assumes significance in view of the fact that the available records do not show that the complainant, a judicial officer subordinate to the officer complained against, was provided a judicious and fair opportunity to defend her allegations and place evidence in her support as also a chance to the officer complained against to present his side of the case?” the Minister said.

His second point was that whether pending the conclusion of a fair and proper inquiry by a woman judge or a senior woman judicial officer, which would prove the innocence of the recommended officer, the SC Collegium should not withhold its recommendation to appoint him to a constitutional office as high as high Court judge?

“These questions also assume significance as their satisfactory resolution will in future illuminate and inform our approach in dealing with such cases and help us in effective appointment of persons who can stand up to the highest standards of conduct and probity that the Founding Fathers of our great nation and makers of Indian Constitution considered as important and placed the responsibility on us to adhere to, and follow them, in making appointments to higher judiciary,” said Prasad, concluding his letter.