India News

MP High Court judge cleared of sexual harassment charges by Rajya Sabha panel

Published

9 years ago

December 15, 2017

MP High Court judge cleared of sexual harassment charges by Rajya Sabha panel

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Justice SK Gangele of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been cleared of the charge of sexual harassment by an inquiry committee constituted by the Rajya Sabha in April 2015 following allegations made against him by a former additional district and sessions judge of Gwalior.

The report of the inquiry committee headed by Supreme Court’s Justice R Banumathi and comprising Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, Justice Manjula Chellur and Attorney General KK Venugopal was tabled in the Rajya Sabha on Friday shortly after Parliament’s winter session began.

Fifty-eight members of the Rajya Sabha had on March 4, 2015 given a notice to the then Chairman of the House, former Vice President Hamid Ansari for moving a motion for the impeachment of Justice Gangele. The inquiry committee constituted by Hamid Ansari on April 15, 2015 took over 31 months to complete its investigation in the case, while three of its presiding officers were changed during this period. The panel was first formed with Supreme Court’s Justice Vikramjit Sen as the presiding officer who was then replaced with Justice Ranjan Gogoi on February 10, 2016. Justice Rohinton Nariman was next made the presiding officer on March 17, 2016 but was replaced with Justice R Banumathi less than a month later on April 8, 2016.

Justice Gangele had been accused of sexually harassing the woman judge, victimising her “for not submitting to his illegal and immoral demands, transferring her from Gwalior to Sidhi” and “misusing his position as the administrative judge of the High Court” to use the subordinate judiciary to victimise her.

The inquiry committee questioned 22 witnesses – four listed by the complainant including herself, seven on behalf of Justice Gangele and the remaining seven comprising judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and district courts and court staff – during its 31-month tenure.

The 135-page report of the inquiry committee, tabled in the Rajya Sabha on Friday, concluded that: “the four instances of sexual harassment alleged by the complainant… are not proved beyond reasonable doubt”. Similarly, it says that the complainant’s allegation that Justice Gangele misused his position using subordinate judiciary to victimize her had also not been proved.

The report also says that the committee found no evidence against Justice Gangele on the complainant’s charge that she had been transferred as Additional District and Sessions Judge from Gwalior to Sidhi because she did not submit to his “illegal and immoral demands”. The Rajya Sabha panel held that the decision of the transfer committee to transfer the woman judge from Gwalior to Sidhi was based on the recommendation by the then district judge Kamal Singh Thakur “who had his own reasons to believe that the complainant was (i) habitual of making unnecessary complaints regarding her staff and non-allocation of substitute staff (ii) she did not use to behave cordially with other judges, especially the civil judges (iii) she made anonymous complaint against the district judge and other judges publicly stating that unlike the previous district judge, administrative skills of the present district judge were not adequate, and thus she should be transferred to some other place.”

However, the panel did conclude that “interference of the respondent judge (Justice Gangele) in transfer of the complainant may be an improper conduct” but qualified its finding by stating: “the same will not amount to ‘misbehaviour’ within the meaning of Article 124 (4) read with Article 217 of the Constitution of India.”

The panel held that the “transfer committee committed an irregularity on solely relying on the recommendation of district judge Kamal Singh Thakur and without making any verification or enquiring on the same, was not justified in transferring the complainant in mid-session. Equally unjustifiable was the rejection of her representations. Transfer of the complainant also does not seem to be in the interest of the administration and, in our view, it was punitive.”

Providing minor relief to the woman judge, the committee held: “in the interest of justice, the complainant has to be re-instated back in the service, in case, if the complainant intends to re-join the service.” Though the committee did not name any specific judge or official of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, it said in its findings that “so far as the Madhya Pradesh high court is concerned… the committee is of the view that there has been a total lack of human face in the transfer of the complainant.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:Bombay High Court Parliament Rajya Sabha

Up Next

Govt approves amendment in law to provide relief in cheque bounce cases

Don't Miss

Bajrang Dal gets carol singing Christians booked on forced conversion charges

India News

Gandhi Parivar vs Sangh Parivar, Revanth Reddy’s remark sparks BJP attack

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks contrasting the Gandhi Parivar with the Sangh Parivar triggered a BJP response accusing Congress of prioritising the Gandhi family.

Published

2 hours ago

September 26, 2026

APNLive Desk

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks comparing the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar have triggered a political exchange, with the BJP hitting back at the Congress leader.

Speaking in Kerala on Friday, Mr Reddy described the contest over India’s future as a fight between the two “parivars”. He said the Gandhi family had made sacrifices for the country while accusing the Sangh Parivar of attempting to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region and language.

What Revanth Reddy said

Mr Reddy cited Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi while speaking about what he described as sacrifices made by the Gandhi family.

He also referred to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, saying they had given up positions, power and high office.

The Telangana Chief Minister said he had no remaining personal political ambitions and described his objective as working towards a Congress-led government at the Centre with Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister.

Mr Reddy also appealed to people to stand with the Gandhi Parivar and oppose the Sangh Parivar. He described the latter as a threat to India’s democracy.

BJP hits back

The BJP responded to Mr Reddy’s remarks on Saturday.

BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Telangana Chief Minister’s comments amounted to an admission that Congress’s objective was to bring the Gandhi family back to power.

He also linked Mr Reddy’s remarks to the ongoing political debate around “vote chori”, the Election Commission, the Constitution and democracy, arguing that the Congress’s focus was instead on the Gandhi family.

The exchange adds to the political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with Mr Reddy presenting the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar as opposing forces in India’s political future, while the BJP has interpreted his remarks as evidence of Congress’s focus on the Gandhi family.

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

9 hours ago

September 26, 2026

APNLive Desk

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

22 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.