Six years ago, on a Saturday in April 2019, the then Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi (currently a Rajya Sabha member) presided over a three-judge bench that he convened to address allegations of sexual harassment by an ex-female staffer of the Supreme Court against himself. The suo moto case was titled – ‘Re: Matter of Great Public Importance touching upon the Independence of Judiciary’.

The complaint, which was circulated a day before to the 22 judges of the Supreme Court, also detailed a series of retaliatory actions, including her unfair dismissal from service, the termination of her brother-in-law’s job at the Supreme Court, the lodging of false criminal cases against her, and instances of police abuse. In an ‘in-house’ procedure that was eventually concluded ex-parte, the Chief Justice of India was given a clean chit. The former employee had refused to participate after she was denied a lawyer. The final report was not provided to her. Therefore, no option was available to challenge the Committee’s finding.

Advertisement

The entire episode is a troubling commentary on power dynamics, highlighting how existing mechanisms were inadequate to address such serious allegations. The institutional bias was glaring. To make matters worse, it was reported at the time that sitting Supreme Court judges had requested an all-male staff and male law clerks in their chambers.

Six years on, as conversations around judicial accountability continue, there is no institutional response or reform to ensure workplace protections in the judiciary.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of India approved the Gender Sensitisation & Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013, pursuant to a writ petition filed after an incident where a Delhi High Court employee was caught peeping into the court’s women’s toilet with his mobile camera. However, the regulations appear to be confined to ‘the Supreme Court of India precincts’, and do not ‘include any female who is already governed by the Supreme Court service regulations’.

The gaps in the regulations became evident when a former intern alleged sexual harassment by a retired Supreme Court judge. Subsequently, a petition was filed for a permanent mechanism to address sexual harassment complaints against sitting and retired judges. The case, pending in the Supreme Court for a decade, was last listed in 2023. Currently, there is no clear complaint mechanism for cases of sexual harassment concerning judges, and particularly the Chief Justice of India.

In 1997, the sixteen values contained in the charter titled ‘Restatement of values of judicial life’ were adopted at a full court meeting of the Supreme Court of India, but remain vague and fall short of addressing harassment in any meaningful detail.

Similarly, the ‘in-house’ peer review mechanism laid down in C. Ravinchandran Iyer v Justice AM Bhattacharjee(1995) and later clarified in Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh (2015) is not comprehensive in defining what constitutes misconduct, leaving much to discretion. In short, the existing framework lacks clarity and is not well-equipped to address such allegations.

There is an urgent need for workplace reform in the Indian judiciary to address sexual harassment, discrimination, and bullying at all levels. First, there must be clear guidelines and explicit definitions of misconduct, including discrimination based on religion, race, caste, sex and disability. There must be a robust grievance redressal mechanism that not only protects victims against retaliation but also encourages reporting against both peers and those higher up. This must be supported with clear communication and training programmes.

While the United States may not be the best example but its federal judiciary during the Me Too movement, with the backing of Chief Justice Roberts, prioritised to “examine the sufficiency of the safeguards currently in place within the Judiciary to protect all court employees from inappropriate conduct in the workplace” and to recommend any necessary changes.

Judges, employees (including court unit executives, managers, and supervisors), advisory committees within the judicial branch, law clerks, interns, externs, and volunteers were all engaged to gather feedback. As a result, ethics and disciplinary rules were changed, new bodies like the National Office of Judicial Integrity and circuit-wide Directors of Workplace Relations were created, and employees now have confidential, anonymous, and varied reporting options, revised employment dispute policies, apart from training programmes.

Second, while internal reform is critical, it may not be sufficient due to a potential conflict of interest. To strengthen judicial accountability, the International Commission of Jurists, in its 2025 report titled ‘Judicial Independence in India: Tipping the Scale’ recommended a statutory mechanism for redressal of complaints against judges, subject to judicial review. Such an independent mechanism would allow an impartial body to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.

The Supreme Court must set an example in ensuring a harassment-free, safe, and a respectful workplace in the judiciary. Transparent and clear policies, along with a functional complaint mechanism, would only strengthen the integrity of the institution.

(The writer is a former Law clerk cum Research Associate, Supreme Court of India.)