Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Ex-Judge : Supreme Court Disposes Of Defamation Suit & Transfer Petition Based On Agreement Between Parties

The Supreme Court today disposed of the defamation suit filed by a former SC judge against a woman who raised sexual harassment allegations him. The Court also disposed of the petition moved by the woman seeking transfer of the defamation suit filed by the ex-judge from Delhi High Court. Both the matters were disposed of on the basis of the agreement between the parties.

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.

A Bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna agreed to dispose of the transfer plea and the original suit (pending before the Delhi High Court, out of which the TP arises) after noting the both the parties had reached an Agreement. The Court informed of this development during the previous hearing.

The Court passed the following directions today:

• That the records pertaining to the instant transfer petition and Civil Suit including plaints and all statements, applicants etc. from the judicial records shall be kept in a sealed cover and consigned to the record room.
• Similarly, any record of the case before the Supreme Court shall also be confined to the record room in a sealed cover.
• With regard to para 6 of the Agreement (Petitioner won’t object to the Respondent asking other search engines and social media platforms to take down content on allegations), the court clarified that the petitioner will abide by the terms of the Agreement and we deem it open to the parties to take steps for the take down of any content.
• Transfer Petition and Original Suit will stand disposed of in terms of the order and the interim injunction will stand confirmed.

Is It Right For Court To Say Don't Report Something? Supreme Court

During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appearing for the Judge took the Court through the terms of the Agreement.

The other Respondents (media houses) today informed the Court that they had no objection in the Court confirming the injunction order dated January 16, 2014. In that order, the Delhi High Court had directed media houses to ensure that there’s no publication or re-publication of any news pertaining to the sexual harassment allegations.

Previously, the Court had mentioned that the Media Houses would have to be heard before confirming the injunction order.

Basis the Agreement, Luthra asked if a direction could be passed to social media platforms and search engines to take down material pertaining to the sexual harassment allegations in terms of the judgement in Shreya Singhal. The Court was hesitant. “Are we not infringing third party rights?”, it asked.

Luthra said if a take-down order has been passed, then the third parties would have to abide by it.

The Bench was still had its doubts. “Should we go to that extent?”, it further asked.

Luthra said that media houses reported the previous developments as well. The Court pointed out that the media houses and social media platforms were only reporting what transpired in the Court.

"For a take-down order, they are not parties", the Court further said.

Third party intermediaries need not be parties, Luthra said.

At this point Justice BV Nagarathna weighed in,

"If you had asked for in-camera proceedings, things would have been different. This is an open court. Open to the public! Is it right for a court to say don't report something?"

Luthra clarified that he wasn’t seeking an order barring the reporting of court-proceedings but only the content pertaining to the allegations only.

Generally, a gag order is passed then there’s an element of defamation, the Court said.

“Suppose it's reported that X has given a complaint against Y. The content is Z. If you are saying take that also down. Then?”, the Court queried

“On each search engine, I can get information on anything. We want social media entities to block the URL of such articles”, Luthra replied adding that he only wanted a takedown order.

“Otherwise, this settlement just becomes a paper exercise”, he added.

“What do you mean by content? What is the actual material that has to be blocked?”, the Court further queried. Luthra said that he would give the details of the URL numbers of the particular stories.

After some back and forth, Luthra told the Bench that he would approach the Delhi High Court if at all articles pertaining to the sexual harassment allegations were published.

Click Here To Read/Download Order