The tussle to protect the judiciary's independence and follow the separation of powers within the State entities has been present in our society since the very inception of these institutions. 

There have been instances when Supreme Court and High Court judges have alleged otherwise since different parties have tried to influence their final decision at different points of time. Still, these are judges from the senior courts. The institution guarantees these senior judges definite power and protection. But what happens to officers who preside over quasi-judicial bodies or to members of the Internal Committee under the PoSH Act? Are they protected to the same extent?

Recently, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Neeraj Bala v. Union of India issued notice to the Union to file a reply and justify the transfer of a Commander in CRPF/ Presiding Officer of the IC within the organization. The allegations by the Petitioner (Commander) before the bench is that her transfer is motivated since she had recently returned findings as the Presiding Officer against senior officers of the CRPF under the PoSH Act. 

The Delhi High Court observed that the principles which apply to the security of tenure of Judges and Presiding Officers of various quasi-judicial tribunals would also apply to Members/Presiding Officers of IC.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgement of  Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 1, wherein it was held that – 

"all Courts are Tribunals; any Tribunal to which any existing jurisdiction of Court is transferred should also be a Judicial Tribunal, meaning inter alia that the Members of the Tribunal should have the independence and security of tenure associated with Judicial Tribunals.” 

Equating the above rationale to the current case, the Delhi High Court has opined that the Presiding Officers and Members of IC are also ‘Judges’ within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960. 

Further, Section 11 (3) of the PoSH Act also grants IC the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, and requiring discovery and production of documents. The High Court acknowledged that there would always be apprehension that on returning unfavourable findings, the organization may bring down the sword of transfer on the employee appointed as the Presiding Officer/Member of the IC. 

The Delhi High Court has allowed an interim stay on the transfer of the Petitioner. It has further allowed the Petitioner to represent her cause against the transfer before the appropriate authority.  The matter is sub judice and has been listed to be heard next on the 25th of August, 2021.

Author: Rakhi Mohanty

DISCLAIMER – No information contained in this website may be reproduced, transmitted, or copied (other than for the purposes of fair dealing, as defined in the Copyright Act, 1957) without the express written permission of Rainmaker Online Training Solutions Pvt. Ltd.