About The Author
This article is written by Kezia John. She is a final year B.Com LL.B student at Government Law College, Ernakulam.
Sexual harassment at the workplace is a serious violation of fundamental rights, including the right to equality, dignity, and a safe working environment. Protection against sexual harassment and right to work with dignity are universally accepted human rights. Our constitution also guarantees protection from gender discrimination and the right to practice any profession or to carry on occupation, trade or business. Judicial interpretations have played a significant role in shaping laws and policies related to workplace harassment.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Bhanwari Devi, a government social worker in Rajasthan, was gang-raped while trying to prevent child marriage. At that time there was no specific law for workplace sexual harassment. A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 1. The Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment at the workplace is a violation of fundamental rights and made employers responsible for preventing and addressing sexual harassment. Directed all workplaces to set up Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) and defined sexual harassment and includes hostile work environment. Court Issued Vishaka Guidelines which remained in force until the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013. This case laid the foundation for workplace harassment laws.
- Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999)
A.K. Chopra, a senior officer at the Apparel Export Promotion Council, was accused of making inappropriate advances towards a female subordinate. The Delhi High Court reinstated him, stating that there was no physical contact. The Supreme Court ruled that physical contact is not necessary to constitute sexual harassment and the accused’s termination was upheld2. Affirmed Vishaka guidelines and upheld that even an attempt to outrage the modesty of a woman or inappropriate behaviour that violates a woman’s dignity constitutes sexual harassment. Any conduct violating dignity or creating a hostile work environment qualifies as harassment. This case actually expanded the definition of sexual harassment beyond physical acts. Reinforced that verbal, non-verbal, and suggestive acts also qualify as workplace harassment. So physical contact is not a prerequisite for an act to be considered sexual harassment.
- Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013)
A social activist filed a petition arguing that Vishaka Guidelines were not being properly implemented3. The petitioners showed that many workplaces lacked Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs). The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Vishaka Guidelines and ordered that all workplaces must form ICCs and act on complaints as the absence of an ICC at a workplace amounts to a violation of women’s rights. Directed state governments and the National Commission for Women to ensure proper implementation. This case strengthened enforcement of workplace sexual harassment laws and played a crucial role in pushing for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
- Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Comptroller & Auditor General of India (2008)
The accused argued that harassment at office parties or work-related events did not qualify as workplace harassment. The Delhi High Court ruled that sexual harassment is not confined to office premises and can extend to any work-related environment4. If the event is related to work or attended by colleagues, it qualifies as workplace sexual harassment. This case broadened the legal definition of workplace harassment so work-related settings such as parties, conferences, or travel fall under workplace harassment laws. So sexual harassment can occur outside office premises and hence expanded employers’ liability for harassment beyond workplace boundaries.
- Ruchika Singh Chhabra v. Air France India (2018)
The Appellant a former employee of the respondent Air France India, alleged that she had been sexually harassed by another employee and lodged a complaint with the Internal Committee of the respondent5. She contended that the constitution of the ICC was contrary to the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act and Rules, 2013 as the external member was not associated with any non-governmental organization and his qualifications were not informed to her even after her continuous emails seeking his affiliation with the respondent. Court declared the appointment of external member as invalid and asked to reconstitute ICC incompliance with the law and to start a fresh enquiry if the appellant case. This case reaffirms the principle that ‘No one shall be a judge in his own case’ and hence the external member from the NGO should be a nonbiased and impartial person for the complainant women to feel safety and fairness. If all the members of the ICC are of the workplace then there is an inbuilt bias towards the workplace hence the external member should be independent and an expert in dealing sexual harassment matters.
- Punjab and Sind Bank v. Durgesh Kuwar Pathak (2018)
A female employee alleged harassment and was transferred after filing the complaint. Held that retaliatory action against a woman for filing a complaint amounts to victimization. Court directed the reinstatement of the complainant and compensation for harassment and wrongful termination6. Usually people are reluctant to give a complaint and if they are discriminated or treated unfairly after filing a complaint then that is a violation of justice. So it is necessary to protect victims from retaliation after filing complaints. This case safeguarded victim rights in workplace disputes and ensured their protection from retaliation for complainants.
- Jaya Kodate v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University (2014)
A female university employee complained of harassment, but the institution lacked an ICC. The Bombay High Court ruled that educational institutions must have ICCs under the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 7. This ensured that students and faculty of junior and senior college are protected under sexual harassment laws. So universities are accountable for workplace safety and all educational institutions must establish ICCs. By this judicial interpretation sexual harassment laws are extended to educational institutions also.
- Dr. Malabika Bhattacharjee v. Internal Complaints Committee, Vivekananda College (2022)
In this case the complainant and the respondent belongs to the same gender and Internal Complaints committee take this complaint. A writ petition 8 challenging the acts of ICC was filed stating that the sexual harassment of same gender is not covered under the POSH Act. The Calcutta High Court observed that the complaints which are related to Same-Gender Sexual Harassment are maintainable under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act. So even if the gender or sex of both the complainant and respondent are same, the provisions of POSH ACT 2013 are attracted.
- Sanjeev Mishra v. Bank of Baroda (2023)
The Petitioner, a chief manager of Bank of Baroda, filed a Petition before the Supreme Court for quashing the chargesheet filed against him by the disciplinary authority of the bank, based on the complaint of sexual harassment by a bank employee9. The Petitioner’s contention that the incident happened outside of the ambit of the workplace since the Complainant was situated in a different State and the obscene message was sent at late night were rejected by the Supreme Court. Court by rejecting this petition has widened the scope of workplace harassment to include digital harassment. So in a digital workplace, the different geographical location is not a matter as the online harassment also falls under sexual harassment at workplace.
Conclusion
The courts continue to reinforce the principles of gender equality, dignity, and a safe working environment through progressive interpretations and strict enforcement of laws. The judicial interpretations in these landmark cases have led to significant legal advancements in workplace sexual harassment laws as it expanded the definition of sexual harassment beyond physical contact and included outside office premises as workplace. It ensured mandatory ICCs even in educational institutions, with the external member being an impartial one for proper grievance redressal. Protection against retaliation for complainants is given thereby safeguarding victim rights. Online harassment and same gender complaints are also included under the purview of POSH Act by these judicial interpretations. These interpretations ensure that workplaces remain safe, inclusive, and legally accountable under the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013.
Footnotes
- Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 3011 ↩︎
- Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625 ↩︎
- Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 297 ↩︎
- Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. CAG, 151 (2008) DLT 97 ↩︎
- Ruchika Singh Chhabra v. Air France India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9340 ↩︎
- Punjab and Sind Bank v. Durgesh Kuwar Pathak, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10436 ↩︎
- Jaya Kodate v. RTM Nagpur University, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 814 ↩︎
- Dr. Malabika Bhattacharjee v. ICC, Vivekananda College, 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 2410 ↩︎
- Sanjeev Mishra v. Bank of Baroda, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 159 ↩︎
