Delhi High Court’s Observations on Security of Tenure

Delhi High Court’s Observations on Security of Tenure Principles Applicable to IC Members

Judgement Given On : 19/07/2021

Summary:

In the case of Neeraj Bala vs. Union of India & Ors., the Delhi High Court, on July 19, 2021, delivered significant observations pertaining to the applicability of principles governing security of tenure. These observations were directed towards members and presiding officers of Internal Committees (IC) tasked with addressing workplace harassment complaints.

Key Legal Points:

Background:

Neeraj Bala, a Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), held the additional role of Presiding Officer of the Sector Level IC. Her transfer was ordered prematurely, prior to the completion of her stipulated three-year tenure. This transfer transpired in the aftermath of adverse findings made against a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in a harassment complaint case.

Security of Tenure:

The Delhi High Court asserted that individuals holding positions as members or presiding officers within ICs should typically enjoy security of tenure.

Precedential Reference:

The court invoked the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India case (2014). This landmark decision emphasized that all judicial bodies, including tribunals, must ensure the independence and security of tenure of their members.

Legal Status of IC Members:

Significantly, the court clarified that members and presiding officers of ICs are considered “Judges” within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 19 of the IPC broadly defines a judge as an individual empowered by law to issue definitive judgments in legal proceedings.

Balancing Administrative Exigencies:

The court addressed the argument raised by the Respondents that the transfer of Neeraj Bala was necessitated by administrative exigencies. In response, the court underscored the need to strike a balance between administrative requirements and the imperative of ensuring security of tenure for IC members. The court cautioned against arbitrary transfers that could potentially create apprehensions among IC members, impacting their ability to make impartial findings in harassment cases.

Legal Implications:

The Delhi High Court’s observations underscore the legal significance of providing security of tenure to members and presiding officers of Internal Committees. These principles are critical to ensuring the independence and impartiality of IC members when handling workplace harassment complaints. Additionally, the court’s reference to Section 19 of the IPC solidifies the legal status of IC members as judicial authorities empowered to render judgments in their official capacity