The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition on Friday, which sought transfer of a defamation suit filed by a former judge of the Supreme Court against a woman alleging sexual abuse at his hands, from the Delhi High Court. 

The Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph on Friday listed the transfer petition filed by the woman in 2014, for hearing on March 3. 

The woman had earlier alleged that she was sexually harassed by a former Supreme Court judge, while she was working as a law intern in the Delhi High Court. The Apex Court judge then filed a defamation suit against the woman. Certain media reporters were also named as defendants in the suit.

Appearing for the former judge, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra said on Friday they were trying to work things out and requested the top court of the country to take up the matter in the coming week.

The Apex Court agreed to the request and listed the matter for hearing on Friday. Advocate Vrinda Grover appeared for the transfer petitioner. 

On November 2 last year, the Supreme Court had adjourned the transfer plea by three weeks.

The Senior Advocate appearing for the former Supreme Court Judge had apprised the Bench of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Hrishikesh Roy that the suit pertained to certain defamatory allegations made against the former judge. 

He said the former judge had filed a response to the petition, however, no rejoinder has been filed on the same. Three of the parties said they did not want to file a response. Others have not filed a response, he added. 

The Senior Counsel said he did not want to get into the merits of the matter because that would be inappropriate. He added that the issue raised in the transfer petition was no longer relevant as the colleagues of the former judge have retired. 

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi had termed it a ‘dead issue’. He observed that the former Judge had already crossed 75 years and that the suit, which had not progressed for years, had suddenly come up now. 

The woman had raised apprehensions in the transfer petition regarding lack of fair trial in the Delhi High Court by contending that the fellow judges of the plaintiff were holding positions in the judiciary. She sought transfer of the suit to her native city.

On January 9, 2022, the Supreme Court had stayed the suit proceedings while admitting the transfer petition.

The Apex Court had raised a query on whether it was necessary to go ahead with the defamation suit.

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

A Special Public Prosecutor accused of sexually assaulting a law intern was denied bail by the Karnataka High Court.

The SPP, K.S.N. Rajesh, is accused of attempting rape and sexually assaulting a law student who was working in his office as an intern. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in two matters registered at Mangalore woman police station against him under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

The single-judge bench of Justice K. Natarajan noted that the petitioner is a practicing advocate and tends to have influence over universities and police officials, including judges, and the court does not intend to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in such a case.

The bench observed that the contents of the complaint reveals that the petitioner attempted rape on the student working in his office. The petitioner clearly misused the situation of the innocent victim girl, and used his position to touch the girl inappropriately which falls within the Sections 354, 376 r/w Section 511 of the IPC. Showing a video and trying to molest the victim and his inability to have intercourse due to early ejaculation without which the prosecutor would have committed rape on the victim by misusing her weakness as a student, clearly satisfies all the ingredients of rape attempt under IPC.

Advocate Dilraj Jude Rohit Sequeira, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that perusal of records shows that the complaint does not attract Section 376 and 354 of IPC including the subsections (a) (b) (c) and (d).

He further submits that there is a delay in filing the complaint even if the ingredients of Sections 354 and 376 are satisfied, where the prosecutor is alleged to have attempted rape under 376 of IPC which is not punishable by imprisonment or death penalty and it is punishable with three years of imprisonment under Section 354 of IPC.

Sequeira further submitted there may not be any requirement of custodial interrogation for the petitioner as the voice samples can be procured for investigation, the CCTV footage can be retrieved though it is submitted that CCTV footage was destroyed as per the victim. Also there was a medical examination conducted when the petitioner-accused appeared before the police.

Also Read: Punjab and Haryana HC disposes of PIL against encroachments, illegal constructions in Barnala district

Advocate H.S. Shankar, appearing on behalf of the prosecution, submitted that custodial interrogation is required for cross-examining the petitioner; further seizure of petitioner’s mobile is also required for recovering CCTV footage and video clips. The petitioner-accused is an influential person and is also involved in bribing judges and police officials hence if released on anticipatory bail there are high chances that he may destroy the evidences against him.

The bench noted that the petitioner may be available for investigation process as contended by his counsel but accordingly that would not be sufficient and the petitioner may be required for custodial interrogation for procurement of CCTV footage from his phone, video clips from his phone, further voice samples need to be sent to Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL). The offences committed by the petitioner in both the cases are of serious nature, though the offences might not be punishable with imprisonment or death penalty.