Arguments were gender neutral: SG Tushar Mehta in case on alleged sexual harassment of judicial officer by MP High Court judge

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta on Tuesday maintained before the Supreme Court that his submissions in the case relating to alleged sexual harassment of Additional District Judge (ADJ) by a Madhya Pradesh High Court judge, were gender neutral [X v. Registrar General]..He also took objection to the fact that arguments which were not made by him were attributed to him.The Court was hearing a plea by the complainant seeking a declaration that her resignation from service was under coercion due to sexual harassment by the High Court judgeA Bench of Justices Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai after hearing the parties reserved its verdict.Mehta, appearing for the High Court, submitted that accepting the petitioner’s prayer would be “catastrophic”. He asked the Court whether it would be justifiable to blame and stigmatise an entire institution as a reason for the petitioner's resignation.“Your Lordships are not dealing with an order of suspension or compulsory retirement or its validity. The finding which is sought is, please declare that the High Court as an institution connived together and ensured creation of circumstances that she was left with no option but to resign. It would have to be considered from a different threshold.”.Further, he brought to the attention of the Bench that a person facing an irregular transfer had several remedies, however an impulsive reaction could not be a justification to seek the highest court’s finding that the same was an act of coercion.It was also submitted on behalf of the High Court that the concept of “coercion resulting into resignation” was developed and used in western jurisprudence for workmen. It was urged that the same may not be made available to a judicial officer.“Judicial officers are discharging sovereign functions of dispensing justice, they cannot be equated with workmen or judgments under labour law, where there is less bargaining power.”He also remarked that, in principal, Indian jurisprudence should not be influenced by western jurisprudence. .Mehta proposed that the test to be applied while considering a petition based on an allegation of coercion, was one of a reasonable person.“It cannot be tested from the point of view of an oversensitive or egoistic individual who feels offended who feels offended easily,” he submitted..The threshold of judicial review of a decision of the full court would, therefore, be very high and this case did not justify interference..In response to the Solicitor General’s submissions, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who appeared for the ADJ stressed that his argument was one of “alarm”.“To say that I am stigmatising the entire Court is an argument of prejudice,” she said..She pointed out that even before the Vishaka judgment, every time a case of sexual harassment was before a Court, counsel would argue that, “if you allow this, tomorrow your secretary will make an allegation against you.”Further, the Senior Counsel assured the Court that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner as she was simply exhausting all her bona fide remedies under the law..With regard to the SG’s remarks on the value of foreign jurisprudence, Jaising stated that all of us must applaud his nationalistic attitude. However, she identified as an internationalist saying, “I will look everywhere for light.”.After responding to the Solicitor’s arguments on facts, Jaising went on to cite a judgment of the Supreme Court Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh in which the Supreme Court had made observations against courts and judges expressing any stereotype opinions while writing judgments and orders or hearing cases.“Mr. Mehta’s submissions today are nothing short of male chauvinism and stereotyping of a very responsible judicial officer who has had a very distinguished record of service. Mr. Mehta made an argument that, ‘look at this, a woman who makes an allegation of sexual harassment, if you allow her to come back- what is the message which will be sent to the whole country,” she asserted..To this statement, the Solicitor-General immediately protested asserting, “I never argued this! Where are we going?”.On Jaising concluding her arguments, the SG urged the Court to allow him to make two statements essential for clarification..He insisted that he never used the word “emotional” and only said “impulsive decisions”..A visibly peeved Jaising responded to this saying, “This is the reason why Court proceedings should be recorded. On the previous occasion, he repeated it TEN TIMES!,” insisting that we must maintain transcripts of what counsel say in Court..The SG stood firm that his submissions were gender neutral and they could be read again by the Bench.“I expected more,” he said as the hearing drew to a close..Read an account from Day 1 of the hearing below..Read an account from Day 2 of the hearing below..[Read the MP High Court's written submissions]