As the complaint said that the judge, S.N. Hakeem was “forcing” women employees to watch porn on his official laptop, the laptop was seized and the engineers of the High Court’s computer wing, with help of experts, retrieved pornographic material. Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka received formal complaint from a woman employee that district judge concluded that he was making women employees watch pornographic videos and photos on his official laptop.
During the inquiry, more women employees — who worked under Hakeem between 2008 and 2011 in different courts — disclosed particulars of “exhibition of sexual proclivity” by him. The employees also revealed details about how he “misbehaved” with them both at his court chamber and residence, where he used to call them to take dictations. Touching their legs under the table while giving dictations, using sexually coloured words with them, making physical advances, exhibiting his private parts and touching private parts of the women employees, among others, were the charges levelled against him. When women refused to watch porn on his laptop, he asked them to open the laptop, and on opening it they used to find porn photos. Besides, Hakeem made adverse remarks on their official work when they did not cooperate.
Though the district judge did not lead any evidence in his support, he had raised some objections, besides trying to claim that some materials were “inserted” into his laptop by others. Stating that Hakeem had “not” suggested that the “evidences against him were created,” the Inquiry Authority (IA) found that women employees had identified porn photos and videos that they were forced to watch.
Observing that district judges enjoyed unquestionable trust of colleagues and employees, the IA concluded that the materials were sufficient to prove the charge of sexual harassment as per the guidelines of the apex court in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council of India vs. A.K. Chopra, and Vishaka case verdicts.
The charges were “proved” that the judge’s conducts were “unbecoming of a judicial officer” and committed “misconduct” as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, the IA held.
