Since the events of twentieth April, in which the Chief Justice of India replied to sexual 
harassment allegations against himself with the aid of talking from the Bench after instituting a suo moto writ petition, several trends have happened at the Supreme Court, together with the putting in of a three-member committee using Justice Bobde (the second senior-maximum decide) comprising of himself, Justice N. V. Ramana (the 1/3 senior-most choose) and Justice Indira Banerjee, to behavior an inquiry into the grievance. However, recent news reviews the country that Justice N. V. Ramana has recused himself from the committee necessitating its reconstitution. The complainant has additionally written to the panel inquiring about its reconstitution. As this procedure is underway, we invite the Court to deliberate approximately the concepts that ought to govern the composition and running of the committee. The Court needs to comply with its personal principles laid down in Vishaka and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [1997 6 SCC 241] and now included within the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) at the same time as framing the advert-hoc method inside the gift case.
Setting the usual for all.
The gift case is unheard of in that it’s for the first time within the records of the Supreme Court that a complaint of sexual harassment has been filed in opposition to a sitting Chief Justice of India. The procedure observed in this case must be carefully deliberated upon to make certain that it’s far a technique that is fair, simple, and affordable. All eyes are on the Court at this juncture. The way the prevailing criticism is handled must empower and encourages every other person who has skilled sexual harassment in the administrative center to have the braveness to speak out the call for accountability. The arrival of the #MeToo motion in India included several times of social media accounts of sexual harassment, which sparked debate approximately the relevance and necessity of formal inquiries in cases of sexual harassment. The dealing with this present case, consequently, is in continuation of that conversation and ought to supply religion to all and sundry of this u. S. That formal establishments have the potential to pretty adjudicate proceedings whilst upholding the honor of all involved.
A. The mandate of the Committee: What regulation?
1. Is the inquiry beneath the In-House Procedure?
In the case of sexual harassment allegations in opposition to a sitting decide of the MP High Court, the Supreme Court in 2014 held that the “In-House Procedure” can govern the inquiry process (Addl. District & Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. High Court of M.P (2015) 4 SCC ninety-one). The ‘In-House Procedure’ is particularly designed to deal with misconduct expenses against the Court’s sitting judges. It requires the Chief Justice of India to constitute a 3-member panel of Supreme Court judges to inquire right into a criticism of misconduct obtained through the CJI towards a sitting decision. The CJI is further tasked with supervising and imposing the final results of this inquiry. However, the system does not expressly provide a mechanism to constitute a committee whilst the complaint is against the CJI himself. It may be argued that the CJI continues to be governed through the ‘In-House Procedure’ using the virtue of being a choice of the Supreme Court. However, for an inquiry towards the CJI, an advert-hoc authority will need to be notified to supervise and take movement upon the consequences of the inquiry. In Addl. District & Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. High Court of M.P, the Supreme Court also held that the inquiry process could be molded in “the records and instances of a given case, to ensure that the investigative manner provides safeguards, against favoritism, prejudice or bias.” Therefore, even under the In-House Procedure, the charter and system can be and could need to be drastically altered using following an ad-hoc system inside the gift case to address the particular fact of an inquiry towards the CJI himself.
2. Is the inquiry below the POSH Act and the 2013 Regulations?
The POSH Act and the Gender Sensitisation & Sexual Harassment of Women on the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Regulations, 2013 (“2013 Regulations”) do now not expressly exclude judges of the Supreme Court from its ambit. Given that the nature of treatments below the Act and the Regulations are various and no longer limited to searching for elimination from the workplace, the jurisdiction below the Act and Regulations is not necessarily precluded by Article 124 of the Constitution (which calls for an elaborate system and vote by Parliament for the impeachment of a decide). However, underneath the 2013 Regulations, the CJI has typical supervision and manipulation over the GSICC, including:
