THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P. (C) 6712/2021
The Delhi High Court observed that the same criteria that govern the security of tenure of judges and presiding officers of other quasi-judicial tribunals would also apply to members and presiding officers of an internal committee ("IC") in the case of A v. Union of India & Ors.
FACTS
The petitioner, a commandant at the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in Dwarka, was selected as the Presiding Officer of the Northern Sector's Sector Level Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of workplace sexual harassment of women. She was transferred to Greater Noida It is believed that the petitioner's transfer is intentional, malafide and motivated. Petitioner contented that the real reason for the transfer is to remove the petitioner as the Presiding Officer of ICC and which she is otherwise entitled to continue till remains posted as Commandant in CRPF, Dwarka. Hence challenged her transfer to greater Noida as the transfer was made before the prescribed 3 years tenure.
OBSERVATION
The Supreme Court's ruling in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014), stated that all courts are tribunals and that any tribunal to which any existing jurisdiction of a court is transferred must also be a judicial tribunal, among other things, which means that the members of the tribunal must have the independence and tenure security associated with judicial tribunals, was also cited by the court.
In this respect, the Court also cited Section 11 (3) of the POSH Law which stated that the IC has the same authority to conduct an investigation as a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In light of this, the court also declared that presiding officers and members of the IC are also considered "judges" for Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960. The Court made it clear that the term "Judge" refers to anyone who is authorized by law to render a final judgment in any civil or criminal proceeding or to render a final judgment that, if not appealed, would be final, or to render a final decision that, if confirmed by another authority, would be final, or who is a member of a group of people who are authorized by law to render such a final judgment.
CONCLUSION
There should typically be tenure security when an officer serves as both the presiding officer and a member of the IC by virtue of their job. Members and presiding officers of the IC would be subject to the same security of tenure rules as judges and presiding officers of other quasi-judicial institutions. According to the Court, the transfer was punitive and occurs when a personnel/officer by a post also occupies the position as stated in the Respondent's argument that it was necessary owing to administrative necessities. The necessity for tenure security must be assessed against administrative requirements since; otherwise, there would always be "apprehension that, on reporting unfavorable results, the sword of transfer would be brought down."
Comments