Who Will Protect the Woman Judge Who Dispenses Justice?
When the dispenser of justice herself becomes a seeker of justice
The judiciary is the institution to which a woman ordinarily turns when she is sexually harassed, humiliated, discriminated against, or subjected to abuse of power. Courts are expected to protect her dignity, enforce her legal rights, and punish those who violate them.
But there is a disturbing question that deserves to be asked within the judicial institution itself:
Who will protect the woman judge who dispenses justice?
What happens when the woman seeking protection is herself a judge, while the person against whom she complains occupies a higher position in the judicial hierarchy?
This is not an abstract question. The Indian judicial record contains instances in which women judicial officers have complained against persons senior to them in the judicial hierarchy. Taken together, these cases raise a larger question about institutional vulnerability, hierarchy, power, and the safety of women within the judiciary itself.
The First Warning: The Madhya Pradesh Additional District Judge
One of the most significant cases arose in Madhya Pradesh, where an Additional District and Sessions Judge alleged sexual harassment and victimisation by Justice S.K. Gangele, then a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and an administrative or supervisory judge.
The judicial officer was subsequently transferred from Gwalior to Sidhi and resigned from judicial service in July 2014.
The matter became serious enough for 58 members of the Rajya Sabha to give notice of a motion seeking Justice Gangele’s removal. The eventual inquiry committee did not find the sexual-harassment charges proved.
However, the committee also found evidence suggesting interference in the complainant’s transfer and observed that the transfer was irregular, hurried, and punitive. It recommended that the woman judicial officer be reinstated if she wished to return to service. The Supreme Court subsequently ordered her reinstatement in February 2022.
The significance of this episode lies not only in whether the original allegation was proved, but in the institutional vulnerability of a subordinate judge confronting a superior judge who possessed administrative power over her career.
The Second Warning: The Woman Judge of Uttar Pradesh
In December 2023, another disturbing case came into public view.
A woman judicial officer posted in Banda, Uttar Pradesh, wrote directly to the Chief Justice of India alleging sexual harassment by a senior District Judge and others. She described profound professional and personal distress and alleged that her earlier complaints had not brought her relief.
The most disturbing aspect was not merely the allegation itself. It was the fact that the complainant was herself a judge—someone whose professional life was devoted to hearing the grievances of ordinary citizens.
Yet, according to her complaint, she had become unable to obtain justice within the very institution in which she served.
The matter reached the highest judicial level, and then Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud sought a status report from the Allahabad High Court concerning the complaints made by the judicial officer.
The Third Warning: Shambhoo Singh Raghuvanshi v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
This instance is particularly significant because it comes from a judicial decision.
In Shambhoo Singh Raghuvanshi v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, decided on 14 August 2020, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dealt with proceedings arising from a complaint by a woman judicial officer.
The complaint alleged sexual harassment by a senior judicial officer. A discreet fact-finding inquiry was conducted, and the complaint was found to be genuine. The matter was then referred to the High Court’s Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaint Committee.
The High Court examined the conduct of the senior judicial officer, including WhatsApp communications with the subordinate woman judicial officer. It emphasised that a District Judge occupies a position requiring particular dignity and restraint while dealing with subordinate judicial officers.
The case demonstrates an important principle: power does not always need to be exercised through an explicit threat before it becomes oppressive.
Three Cases, One Structural Question
These three instances are different and should not be artificially merged into one allegation.
However, they can legitimately be considered together for a broader purpose:
Does the institutional structure of the judiciary adequately protect a subordinate judge from abuse of power by a superior judge?
A senior judge can influence the professional environment of a junior judge through administrative interaction, postings, professional assessments, and institutional reputation.
Therefore, conduct that may appear insignificant between two ordinary employees can take on a completely different character when it occurs within a relationship marked by judicial hierarchy and administrative authority.
The Paradox of Judicial Protection
A woman who comes before a court as a litigant is told that the law will protect her dignity.
A woman employee is told that the law protects her against sexual harassment at the workplace.
A woman lawyer is entitled to work in a safe professional environment.
But when the woman herself becomes a judge, does the same assurance continue to operate when the person she complains against is another judge higher in the hierarchy?
The answer cannot simply be:
“There is a committee.”
A committee on paper is not necessarily the same thing as genuine institutional protection.
The complainant must have confidence that making a complaint will not destroy her career, invite retaliatory transfer, damage her professional reputation, or isolate her within the judicial establishment.
The Invisible Problem of Retaliation
The fear of retaliation may be one of the most difficult aspects of institutional harassment.
A judicial officer who complains against a superior may reasonably fear:
- An adverse posting
- Professional isolation
- An adverse administrative assessment
- Denial of opportunities
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Damage to professional reputation
- Hostile treatment by the administrative hierarchy
- Being labelled a “difficult” officer
This is where the issue intersects with the larger principle of judicial independence.
Judicial independence is not merely independence from the executive. A judge must also be able to function without fear of the administrative hierarchy within the judiciary itself.
A Judge Should Not Have to Choose Between Dignity and Career
The most disturbing possibility is that a woman judicial officer may ultimately have to choose between two things:
Her dignity and her judicial career.
No constitutional democracy should force such a choice.
A judge cannot be expected to dispense justice fearlessly to litigants if she herself is afraid of the administrative consequences of complaining against a superior.
The constitutional promise of equality, dignity, personal liberty, and an independent judiciary must also include protection for judges themselves against coercion and intimidation.
That protection cannot stop at the courtroom door.
Who Watches the Watchers?
The judiciary has administrative committees, gender-sensitisation mechanisms, disciplinary processes, and internal complaint procedures.
But every institution must answer an old and fundamental question:
Who watches the watchers?
The answer cannot simply be the same hierarchy against which the complaint is made, without adequate safeguards for independence and impartiality.
A woman judge should not have to approach the Chief Justice of India as a last desperate resort because she believes that the ordinary institutional machinery will not hear her.
A complaint by a junior judge against a senior judge should never be treated as an attack upon the institution.
The institution is not weakened by a complaint.
It is weakened when a genuine complaint cannot safely be made.
The Judiciary Must Protect Its Own Judges
The judiciary derives its moral authority from its ability to tell society:
- Do not misuse power.
- Do not intimidate the weak.
- Do not exploit a subordinate.
- Do not silence a victim.
- Do not retaliate against someone who complains.
If the judiciary expects society to follow these principles, it must demonstrate them internally.
A woman judge who complains against a superior judicial officer is not challenging the dignity of the judiciary.
She is asking the judiciary to live by the very principles it applies to everyone else.
Conclusion: Justice Must Begin at Home
The cases discussed should not be used to indict the entire judiciary. The overwhelming majority of judges perform their constitutional responsibilities with integrity and dignity.
But precisely because the judiciary is an institution of justice, it must be more—not less—sensitive to the possibility of abuse within its own hierarchy.
The question therefore remains:
Who will protect the woman judge who dispenses justice?
The answer cannot simply be:
“Have faith in the institution.”
The answer must be to build an institution in which a woman judge can safely complain, receive an impartial hearing, remain free from retaliation, and continue her judicial career without fear.
A woman judge should never have to choose between remaining silent and remaining a judge.
Because the day a judge becomes afraid to speak against a superior is the day that judicial independence itself begins to lose meaning.
Justice cannot be credible if the person who dispenses it has no safe place to seek it herself.