1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 393/2009 Jos. Peter D'Souza. ........ Petitioner. V/s. High Court of Bombay at Goa at Panaji and another. ......... Respondents. Petitioner in person. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P. Talaulikar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM :- NARESH H. PATIL & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. Date : - February 02, 2010. P.C. : - Heard the party in person and the learned Senior Advocate Shri Nadkarni for respondent No.1. The party in person submitted that the committee constituted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Notification No.P.1616/2000 dated 20.1.2010 is not constituted in accordance with the observations and 2 the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3011. It is further submitted that the Committee should be constituted at the work place, meaning thereby that the Committee shall function at Goa. While taking objection to the prayer made in the affidavit-in-reply dated 22.7.09 filed by the Registrar (Legal), High Court, Appellate Side, it was submitted that costs should be imposed on the affiant. The party in person further submitted that the High Court of Bombay and Goa being a common High Court, the Committee constituted should function at Goa. The party in person has relied upon a Notification dated March 31, 2009 issued by the High Court of Gujarat constituting “Complaints Committee” pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka cited supra. 2. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Nadkarni submitted that in view of the amendment made by the Government of Maharashtra in the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1979 and in exercise of powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to make amendments in the Bombay High Court (Conduct) Rules, whereby Rule 24 of the 3 Bombay High Court (Conduct) Rules was amended, inserting clause relating to constitution of committee for prevention of sexual harassment of working women. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that thereafter, the High Court, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution of India, constituted fresh committees in respect of Class I & Class II employees and Class III & Class IV employees of the High Court. In the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, the guidelines and the norms as laid down by the Apex Court's directions in the case of Vishaka cited supra, have been strictly observed. He laid emphasis on the last para of the report. In the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, in view of Article 229 of the Constitution, the amendment of Rule 24 A of the Bombay High Court (Conduct) Rules has force of law and thus law is in existence and occupies the field. The learned Counsel submitted that the Committee constituted for looking into the grievances of the Class I and Class II employees is headed by the Hon'ble Lady Judge of the High Court and the Committee for Class III & Class IV employees is headed by the Registrar of High Court of Bombay at Goa, who too is a lady. 4 3. We have considered the submissions advanced. Perused the relevant rules. We would reproduce herein guideline No. 7 of the Judgment in the case of Vishaka, cited supra, which reads thus : “ 7. Complaints Committee : The complaint mechanism, referred to in (6) above, should be adequate to provide, where necessary, a Complaints Committee, a special counsellor or other support service, including the maintenance of confidentiality. The Complaints Committee should be headed by a woman and not less than half of its member should be women. Further, to prevent the possibility of any undue pressure or influence from senior levels, such Complaints Committee should involve a third party, either NGO or other body who is familiar with the issue of sexual harassment. The Complaints Committee must make an annual report to the Government department concerned of the complaints and action taken by them. The employers and person in charge will also report on the compliance with the aforesaid guidelines including on the reports of the Complaints Committee to the Government 5 department.” In the last para of the Judgment in Vishaka's case, the Apex Court observed thus : “ Accordingly, we direct that the above guidelines and norms would be strictly observed in all work places for the preservation and enforcement of the right to gender equality of the working women. These directions would be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field. These writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly.” 4. High Court of Judicature at Bombay issued Notification dated 20/1/2010 for publication in the Goa Government Gazette, which reads as under : “ Department of Law and Judiciary Law (Establishment) Division High Court of Judicature at Bombay Notification No.P.1616/2000 (For insertion in the Goa Government Gazette). 6 In view of the amendment made in the Bombay High Court (Conduct) Rules and in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice has been pleased to constitute the following new Committee to deal with the complaints, if any, of Sexual Harassment to any women in the High Court of Bombay at Goa: The committee for The committee for Class-I & Class II Class-III & Class IV Employees Employees 1. Hon'ble Smt. Justice 1. Kum. I. K. Jain, N.N. Mhatre Registrar. 2. Hon'ble Shri Justice 2. Shri B.P. Deshpande, N.A. Britto. DJ-1 & Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji. High Court of Judicature A.I.S. Cheema at Bombay. Registrar General Dated : 20th January, 2010.” We find substance in the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel Shri Nadkarni that by amending Rule 24 of the Bombay High Court (Conduct) Rules, the committees are constituted. The rules have force of law and a re-delegated piece of legislation. 5. Even, otherwise, by reading para 7 of the Judgment in 7 Vishaka's case, cited supra, we are of the view that third party involvement like an NGO or other body which is familiar with the issue of harassment was felt necessary only to prevent possibility of any undue pressure or influence from senior levels. In case of the employees of Class I and Class II, the Committee consists of two Hon'ble High Court Judges and the said Committee is headed by the Hon'ble the lady Judge of the High Court. Whereas the Committee to look after the grievances of Class III and Class IV employees consists of Registrar of the High Court of Bombay at Goa and DJ-1 & Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji which is again headed by a lady. As such, we find that there is substantial compliance of the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Vishaka. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the prayer to impose costs on the Registrar is not sustainable. The petitioner has sought mandamus directing the respondents to constitute Prevention of Sexual Harassment Committee keeping in view the directions of the Apex Court in Vishaka's case. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court 8 submitted that the Notification in respect of formation of the Committee has been published in the Gazette of the Government of Goa. 8. In the light of the observations made by us as above, and the Notification having been issued by the High Court constituting the committee, nothing survives in this writ petition to be decided any further. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm