The Supreme Court today rejected the plea of Madhya Pradesh High Court Judge, accsued by a former woman judicial officer of sexual harassment, that the Chief Justice of the High Court is not "subservient" to the Chief Justice of India and "fetters" cannot placed on his discretion.
"There can be no doubt that it was not open to the Chief Justice of the High Court either to constitute the 'two-Judge Committee' or to require the 'two-Judge Committee' to hold an inquiry into the matter by recording statements of witnesses.
"The role of the Chief Justice of the High Court, being limited to the first stage of the investigative process, during which the only determination is whether a prima facie case is made out requiring a deeper probe; the Chief Justice of the High Court had exceeded the authority vested in him under the 'in-house procedure'," the bench headed by Justice J S Kehar said.
The HC judge had justified the constitution of a two-judge committee to look into the allegations against him saying the Chief Justice of a High Court does not function under the administrative control of the Chief Justice of India.
The Chief Justice of the High Court "would and should be at liberty to evolve a procedure in the best interest of all concerned and he should not be deprived of the said liberty", he had said.
The apex court cannot "limit or place fetters on the discretion of the Chief Justice of the High Court, insofar as the investigative procedure is concerned", he had said.
The apex court said the "in-house" procedure was a well thought-out proposal and the onus of recording a prima facie view in a matter like this always lie with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
But the second stage of the "in-house" procedure has to be intiated by the Chief Justice of India, it said.
