Supreme Court Informed About Agreement In Defamation Suit Over Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Ex-Judge

While hearing a petition moved by a woman in 2014 seeking transfer of a defamation suit filed by a former judge of the Supreme Court from Delhi High Court pertaining to sexual harassment allegations, the Supreme Court was informed that both the parties have reached an agreement.

The former judge had filed the defamation suit against the woman in the Delhi High Court after she alleged that she was sexually harassed by him while she was a law intern. The woman sought transfer of the suit from Delhi High Court contending that most judges were ex-colleagues of the plaintiff and hence there was an apprehension of bias.

On Friday, before a Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the ex-judge, informed the bench about the proceedings in the matter. As of now, what has been agreed is that plea would be withdrawn with liberty to move the court if required. The agreement was placed before the Court in a sealed cover today.

The second part of the agreement is a request to the Court to confirm (make absolute) the injunction order dated January 15, 2014 passed in the suit directing media houses to ensure that there’s no publication or re-publication of any news pertaining to the sexual harassment allegations. Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the woman, stated that the agreement was filed in a sealed cover to protect the identity of the victim, who is now a practising lawyer.

"Will the suit be withdrawn?", the Court asked after the terms of the Agreement was explained.

“That is where we are seeking the Lordships’ indulgence. If your Lordships consider it appropriate to invoke Article 142 powers and dispose off the civil suit which is currently pending before the Delhi High Court, in which we have come in a Transfer petition…”, Grover said while adding that disposal of the plea would as per the Agreement.

At this juncture, the Court pointed out that the media houses would have agree to the Agreement as the order dated January 15, 2014 works against them.

“Once the settlement (Agreement) is reached, either they (media houses) should agree or they should be heard”, the Bench pointed out while suggesting to make the media houses also parties of the Agreement.

We will try to work it out, Luthra assured.

Grover stated that it would be difficult to bring the other Defendants into the present Agreement because the litigation is particularly against the two parties - the ex-Judge and the victim.

An agreement between the two parties may not be binding on the media houses, Justice Nagarathna added.

In order to protect the identity of the victim, the Court asked if she could execute a power of attorney, who then could be her signatory. However, the parties clarified that the victim had already signed the agreement.

We will redact the signature and give a copy to the media houses, Luthra said.

On the basis of these submissions, the Court recorded its order while posting the matter on March 23.

“The petitioner and the First Respondent appear to have entered into an Agreement. However, it is noted that there are other parties involved in the suit out of which the present case arises. It may therefore be necessary to pass an effective order that the other respondents are also taken on board. Towards this, we are assured that efforts will be made.”

On a previous occasion, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi appearing on behalf of the former judge had apprised the Apex Court that the issue raised in the transfer petition is no longer relevant as the colleagues of the ex-judge have retired from the High Court.

While considering the defamation suit, the Delhi High Court had passed a restraint order against the media in relation to the reporting of the allegations and the publication of the judge's photographs.

 Click Here To Read/Download Order