#dnaEdit: Power & patriarchy

The resignation of an additional district and sessions judge, alleging sexual harassment by a Madhya Pradesh high court judge who had administrative control over her, points to the overwhelming grip of patriarchy, even in institutions charged with upholding constitutional rights. That the alleged sexual harassment also comes with accusations of vindictive treatment and a  punitive transfer, disregarding the judicial officer’s pleas for an extension considering her daughter was in the middle of her academic session, aggravates the extent of the alleged impropriety. The charges, coming less than a year after two former Supreme Court judges were accused of sexual impropriety by law interns working for them, reflects blatant misuse of positions of power that mar the professional prospects of women who are increasingly entering erstwhile male bastions. The Chief Justice of India RM Lodha has promised appropriate action after seeking a report from the chief justice of the MP high court. CJI Lodha must also reject the judicial officer’s resignation; a victim, that too a judge, having to resign from her organisation over alleged sexual harassment, sends out the wrong message to society.

For women not taking such harassment lying down, the difficulty of reporting these incidents in the absence of credible systems to provide assistance is compounded by the institutional and societal pressures to contend with after the matter becomes public. Though the complainant headed the gender sensitisation and internal complaints committee(GSICC) in her district, it is unclear yet why she chose not to approach the GSICC of the MP high court, also chaired by a woman judge. After the Tarun Tejpal and the AK Ganguly case, it dawned on the country that most organisations, including the Supreme Court, continued to function without a GSICC despite statutory compulsions under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. While it has been reported that the Supreme Court’s 10-member GSICC — comprising seven women with a healthy mix of judges, advocates, and civil society representatives — is scrutinising a few complaints, it is unclear yet whether this change has percolated downwards to high courts and lower courts. Without a periodic review of the functioning of laws, they slip into disuse and hardly inspire the confidence of those seeking justice.

Parliamentarians who have been up in arms against the relative immunity that the judiciary enjoys have the option of initiating impeachment proceedings against the MP judge. It remains to be seen whether Parliament will attempt this  cumbersome procedure, as demanded by some activists and lawyers, or make a fresh bid to enact the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill that would offer another statutory recourse to victims of judicial misconduct. In its present form, the bill vaguely defines judicial misbehaviour and places unreasonable curbs on oral judicial criticism of other constitutional functionaries. Its three-tier structure of a scrutiny committee to vet complaints, and an oversight committee to monitor the probe carried out by an investigation committee is a mixed bag. The scrutiny and oversight committees are predominantly staffed by judges. While this could weed out frivolous complaints and safeguard judicial independence, will judges act against their own? But in Justice AK Ganguly’s case, a three-judge Supreme Court ad-hoc committee found prima facie evidence in the complaint against him by the intern; however the home ministry cleared his name later. Unbridled power corrupts; the higher judiciary, which checks the abuse of authority by other entities, requires better checks and balances for itself.