Madhya Pradesh judge sued FIR sending flirtatious texts over WhatsApp Petition rejected by High Court saying it was random flirting Supreme Court takes the text messages as accusations and eventually adjourns the court.
Past Tuesday, the Supreme Court made astute and sharp observations on the conduct of a local district judge from Madhya Pradesh, who was being sued for sending offensive and inappropriate text messages to a junior officer and later justified this misconduct as mere act of “flirting”.
The accused is retired district judge from Madhya Pradesh who moved the top court challenging the disciplinary committee proceedings directed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court over the accusatory remarks and allegations of sexual harassment made by a junior judicial officer.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court issues notices to WhatsApp, Facebook over privacy policy updates
Madhya Pradesh High Court was represented by Senior advocate Ravindra Shrivastava along with advocate Arjun Garg, who read aloud several WhatsApp text messages sent by the former District Judge to the junior lady officer. Shrivastava accused the former djudge that he is a senior judicial officer and hence his conduct should have been more appropriate and must have apprehended himself from behaving this way with the lady officer.
A bench setup for the case was headed by Chief Justice S. A. Bobde and comprised of Justices A.S. Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian who commented that WhatsApp text messages were quite offensive and improper. For a judge this conduct with junior officer is absolutely not acceptable.”
Shrivastava told the imperial court that the woman officer wanted a settlement, but the High Court disciplinary committee presiding this matter did not accept it. He added the petitioner had admitted that he was flirting with the lady. After this the representing counsel questioned the misconduct of the accused saying a man hailing from a legal background must have know better. And at this stage, the Chief Justice said it agrees with Shrivastava’s submissions.
ALSO READ: Right to protest and express dissent cannot be anytime everywhere: Supreme Court
Senior advocate R Balasubramanian, who represented the district judge, submitted that the lady officer had withdrawn her petition under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, therefore the disciplinary proceedings by the High Court are not to be entertained still.
The presiding bench queried Balasubramanian, the woman may have withdrawn the complaint, but the bigger question is whether the inquiry should be conducted by the High Court or not.
Chief Justice acknowledged that he might have thought that it is a private conversation, and hence the matter before the gender sensitisation committee came to an end after the lady declined to participate. The presiding bench reiterated that High Court wanted to proceed, and is duty bound to do so. Adding to it he questioned satirically, What is there in law which can prevent High Court proceedings?
ALSO READ: Comedian Kunal Kamra refuses to apologize for his comments on Supreme Court
Balasubramanian argued that these charges were levied during his accused’s promotional days just to spoil his promotional chances. The CJI replied that all these phenomenon is ubiquitous. “All kinds of allegations come during promotion. We cannot generalise it. In this case there is allegation”, observed the bench.
Concluding the proceedings, the Chief Justice said that we are likely to make more sweeping observations in this case, and asked the petitioner to withdraw and contest the enquiry. And after a detailed hearing in the alleged matter, the supreme court adjourned the case for a week.
