 | « Back to article | Print this article |
A war of words broke out in the Supreme Court on Tuesday between solicitor general Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Indira Jaising over the submission of the law officer that we need not be influenced by judgments of western jurisdictions.
The apex court was hearing a plea by a former woman judicial officer who resigned following an inquiry into her allegations of sexual harassment against a Madhya Pradesh high court judge.
During the hearing, Mehta submitted, "My friend has relied on western jurisprudence. Principally, it has always been my respectful submission that our jurisprudence should not be influenced by western jurisprudence. The judgments which are court of appeal etc are hierarchically much lower than the Supreme Court."
"We don't cite district court judgments before the Supreme Court. We have our own system, problems and ethos and we need not be influenced by what is stated in some other jurisdictions," Mehta said.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, took strong objection over the SG's 'nationalistic' attitude towards jurisprudence.
"I would like to say that I am impressed by Mr Mehta's nationalistic attitude towards jurisprudence when he says that our courts should not look at UK courts and his nationalism must be applauded by all of us. I am an internationalist and I will look for light everywhere! And I will place before you judgments from various jurisdictions. It is up to you whether to accept it," Jaising submitted before a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai.
She also expressed displeasure over the solicitor general terming the petitioner as 'emotional' and said it is a 'stereotypical' argument.
"Mr Mehta's seriously advanced proposition in writing is nothing short of male chauvinism and stereotyping of a very responsible judicial officer who has had a very distinguished record of service," she said.
Jaising also responded to the SG's submission that reinstatement of the woman law officer after her unproven charge of sexual harassment would send a wrong signal to the whole country.
"Mr Mehta made an argument, what is the message sent to the whole country? I'm sorry to point out the hypocrisy... This is an argument of alarm," she said.
The solicitor general, however, said that he never argued this.
When Mehta tried to clarify, Jaising said, "It is not fair for him to be allowed to make submissions."
Mehta then said, "Nuisance value is a value. No, I never used the word emotional. I said impulsive decision."
Jaising responded, "This is why court proceedings should be recorded. On the previous occasion, he repeated it 10 times. It was on the tip of his tongue.. We must have transcripts of what counsel say in court."
Mehta however stated, "I can't be irresponsible. My submissions are gender neutral."
The bench then intervened and reserved its judgment.
The high court judge, against whom the sexual harassment complaint was made by her, was later given a clean chit in December 2017 by a Rajya Sabha-appointed panel that had probed the allegations.
The woman, in her plea, has said that the high court had ignored the categorical finding in the report of the judges inquiry committee dated December 15, 2017, terming the petitioner's resignation dated July 15, 2014, from her post of additional district judge 'unbearable circumstances having no other option.'
The plea has added that the Judges Inquiry Committee had opined that 'the petitioner be reinstated to service since her resignation was tendered under coercion.'
A motion of impeachment was admitted against the high court judge after 58 members of Rajya Sabha supported the woman's case.
The report of the panel comprising then Supreme Court judge R Bhanumathi, Justice Manjula Chellur (then Bombay high court judge), and jurist KK Venugopal (now attorney general for India) had given a clean chit to the high court judge and was tabled before the Rajya Sabha on December 15, 2017.