Thread by @LawBeatInd

#SupremeCourt to continue hearing the plea by a woman judge seeking reinstatement on the grounds that she was forced to resign as she was transferred for raising sexual harassment allegations. SGI to make submissions

SG:She substantiates her resignation on basis of 3 grounds.

Justice Gavai: After her transfer her representations were rejected. She had no other alternated.

SG: A mere incident of transfer based on rejection of representation is not enough to say its coercion

SG: She seeks the #SupremeCourt to declared that High Court connived together with others to enable her resignation. Findings of the committee were not challenged, so far as the transfer is concerned the committee says its irregular. This merely is no reason to say she was tormen

SG: If this is accepted, your lordships know the extent to which this can go. Would we be justified in stigmatising an entire institution for an illegal transfer?

SG: We are dealing with legally trained minds who are dealing with rights of people.

SG: The only substantiated allegation is that of a mid-term transfer, everything else has not be proved by committee. The decision is merely impulsions.

SG: it was not a solitary transfer, some 25 judicial officers were transferred. This decision is very important for future #SupremeCourt

SG: To hold that a transfer was made to ensure that a person resigns needs to be looked at from a much much higher threshold. It is beyond the jurisdiction of Article 32

SG: she is strong enough to call senior judges of the high court to get a peon ! The same judge against whom allegations are levelled

SG: The judgments relied by the other side are those belonging to the lower jurisdiction. We don’t usually cite them. In Principle I avoid foreign judgments because we have our own problems and jurisprudence

SG reads judgments on constructive discharge

SG reads judgments of judicial review of the decision of the full court.

SG: The very fact that twice 2 different committees of the High Court came to the conclusion says something. Considering the facts involved, an institution cannot be maligned.

@IJaising : SG seems to be implying that there is a delay on my part. That is wrong. She was bonafide pursuing remedies available in law. That process concluded on 15th December 2017 when the report was submitted to @RajyaSabha

Jaisingh: She makes an application to the full court on 21st December 2017, then she was informed that representation is rejected 25th January 2018. She files the WP on 23rd July 2018. Hence there is no delay here.

Jaisingh: He has pointed out that SC has given her the liberty to raise the issue of transfer. He says course of administration will suffer and it will open flood gates, answer is every case has its own set of facts. This is an argument of alarm.

Jaisingh: To say that I am maligning the institution is an act of prejudice. There was an argument on not relying on foreign law. Art 372 of the Constitution says we can

Jaisingh: I am entitled to rely on the principles enunciated by the judgments of the court in UK. The other judgment was of the SC of US.The SC has held that these apply to India too

Jaisingh: The mere violations of guidelines entitles me to relief. I want to clear one misconception, he says you must show intention. It is required to be shown when the employer is vicarious for damages, not otherwise

Jaisingh: The law is that this argument that he must intend is not available, an employer is not liable vicariously unless it is proved. The petitioner has not made any financial claims, she only wants to works with the judiciary

Jaisingh: He has to justify the order of transfer if he intends to succeed, he has not done so.On argument that similarly situated people are transferred, it is wrong. The others were in the super time scale, they had completed their deputation, their names were in the agenda

Before transfer committee, they were all transferred to vacant courts. These were selection grade judges, they were not ADJs- Jaisingh

@IJaising : All were in the agenda for transfer. Her name is at page 212 she is shown as X and she was not transferred to any vacant court. Therefore it is wrong to say there were mid term transfers

Jaisingh: On the jurisdiction of the committee, the committee can regulate its own procedure. Ultimately this was done, oath was taken from the parties. Mr.Sanjay Jain was Amicus to the committee

Jaisingh: The SG has attacked the recommendation made by the committee of three. Their observation is within the framework of law.

@IJaising gives out names. SG requests her not to name anybody. She says it was inadvertent

@IJaising : Mr.Mehta’s written submission is serious male opinion. I appreciate SG’s nationalistic approach to jurisprudence, I am an internationalist, I will look for light everywhere. I will cite judgements on why international law can be used

Jaisingh reads Vishakha judgment, in the absence of domestic jurisprudence, international law can be used.

@IJaising : She was dealing with a situation in which her day to day presence was required with her daughter. She still said send me to a class B city, it is a time sensitive matter.

Jaisingh: Mr.Mehta made an argument saying if a women who had made an allegation of sexual harassment, what will happen to the institution. This is a statement of alarm.

SG vehemently objects.

SG: NUISANCE VALUE IS A VALUE. I never said emotional, I said impulsive. I expected more, I am happy that it was less.

Judgment reserved

A Supreme Court bench of Justices L. Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai today reserved judgment in a plea by woman district judge seeking reinstatement after resigning from service alleging sexual harassment and deliberate pressure. @sai_prasad_law reports
lawbeat.in/top-stories/su…