The Rights of the Deceased: Moral Rights Incidental to Copyright Law
- Vanshika Agrawal
- 2024-04-25
Sexual harassment at a workplace is considered a violation of women’s right to equality, life, and liberty. It creates an insecure and hostile work environment, which discourages women’s participation in work, thereby adversely affecting their social and economic empowerment and the goal of inclusive growth. In 1997, in the landmark judgment of Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan[1], the Supreme Court of India defined sexual harassment at the workplace, pronounced preventive, prohibitory, and redressal measures, and gave directives towards a legislative mandate to the guidelines proposed.
Contents hide
2 Sexual Harassment in Constitution
2.1 Indian Constitution on Sexual Harassment
2.3 Analysis of Anita Suresh v. Union of India & Ors[3]
An important feature of the Act is that it envisages the setting up of Internal Complaints Committee at every office of the organization or institution, having more than 10 employees, to hear and redress complaints pertaining to sexual harassment. The Delhi High Court in its judgment in Ruchika Singh Chhabra v. M/s Air France India and Anr.[2] “...directed that the ICC should be constituted in strict compliance with the requirements under the law…”
However, to date, ICC has not been constituted in many workplaces. There have also been many complaints about its inefficiency, latency and biased panels. The awareness regarding the consequences of sexual harassment and its redressal against the same is also limited. The effective implementation of the POSH Act requires an environment where women can speak up about their grievances without fear where and men are cooperative towards such cases.
Sexual harassment clearly violates the fundamental rights of a women to Equality under Article 14 which is Equality before law and Article 15 which is Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, her right to life and right to practice any profession and carry on any occupation, trade or business which is under Article 21 and her Right to safe environment free from sexual harassment under Article 19(1)(g).
In 2013, substantial changes is made in the way sexual harassment viewed within the criminal justice system in India. The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 2013, which commenced on April 3, 2013, included Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 that defined sexual harassment. The India Penal Code, 1860 has also defined the term sexual harassment and related offences and put forth punishments for the same.
The petition file against the order of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). The petitioner made a written complaint to the Director General of ESI Corporation alleging sexual harassment by respondent. ESIC constituted an Internal Complaints Committee to examine the complaint of the petitioner. The committee examined the petitioner, respondent, and eight witnesses. The Committee in its report has observed that the exact content of communication of the incident could not be established. The Committee gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent and recommended relocating both the parties from their present posting.
The Court held that the complaint of the petitioner appears to be false and filed with some ulterior motive. It was observed that it is not believable that the petitioner would not remember the names of any colleague/staff member. The Committee examined all the persons who were on duty on that day but no one supported the allegations of the petitioner.
The above is a landmark case and the key point of the case, i.e. complaint must be bonafide and filed without any ulterior motive or malafide intention, has been reiterated many times by the apex court.
Sexual Harassment at the workplace is however a universal and higher prevalent problem. There is also an absence of a mechanism to check execution in the private sector. Where many cases go unreported as well. Therefore, the focus must be on effective implementation of guidelines given by the Supreme Court, rather than the misuse of the law.
[1] (1997) 6 SCC 241
[3] W.P.(C) 5114/2015
Drop your comment