7 Reasons Why It Needs A Disclaimer On the PoSH Law

Yes, web series carry a disclaimer nowadays, and so does Bombay Begums, but it is so generic and overused that the audience glazes over it. The 18+ rating makes a blink-and-you-miss-it appearance. The disclaimer used is the usual run-of-the-mill one, which states, “This is a work of fiction….” According to a study, a sizable number of Indians don’t read the disclaimers as they find them “difficult to read.” 

Not having specific disclaimers can mislead the public:

It’s high time we stopped misleading the public by not having specific disclaimers with the content. Disclaimers serve the crucial purpose of legally protecting the business from liability risks. They convey to the audience firmly that we are not taking responsibility for the information’s correctness or accuracy. They also serve a dual purpose of apprising the audience that the precise details in the content are not factual. People should not believe it at face value. 

What should the Bombay Begums’ disclaimer state?

Bombay Begums’ producers should inform the audience through a prominent disclaimer that “the PoSH Law‘s representation in the web series is not accurate. This depiction is not within the four corners of the PoSH Law. The purpose of this web series is pure entertainment with a social message; hence the story is fictional, and so is the Internal Committee’s (IC or ICC) functioning.”

The disclaimer could also just state that any representation of the law is fictitious. 

A conversation is the starting point of change:

The social message of Bombay Begums is a powerful one, no doubt, and incredibly well depicted. Though the carefree portrayal of teenagers snorting drugs and consuming alcohol has landed Bombay Begums in a tight spot, we need to face it head-on if it is the reality in many teenagers’ lives. At least, the web series has kick-started a conversation that has been sputtering on and off.

The PoSH Law’s inaccurate portrayal’s effect:

In Bombay Begums, the generic disclaimer is present, but the much-needed disclaimer on PoSH Law‘s fictional portrayal is missing. So the audience doesn’t even realize that the story, though quite captivating and entertaining, is inaccurately depicting the provisions of the PoSH Act, 2013. This erroneous representation undermines our country’s cardinal statute and misinforms the poor audience. After seeing how the PoSH Committee Members (IC) grill the Complainant, women will think this is how ICs function concerning the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013. It will ultimately erode the confidence of women who are considering filing a Sexual Harassment complaint. 

This confidence needs a boost, not an erosion:

Reason No. 1: The first thing that made me do a double-take was the CEO, Ms. Rani, sitting among the IC members.

As per the PoSH Law, the CEO or employer cannot be part of the IC inquiring into a complaint. Doing this would be a complete travesty of the law. The PoSH Act mandates providing a safe workplace to women. The employer or the CEO is at the top of the hierarchy of power in the workplace. In other words, they must provide a safe workplace to abide by the law. A complaint of Sexual Harassment is potentially a violation of the law, with which the employer should have complied. Consequently, the employer cannot sit in an inquiry against himself/herself. 

‘nemo judex in causa sua’: No person can judge a case in which they have an interest—a tenet of law.

Reason No. 2: When Ayesha, the Complainant, is narrating her story, it is the first meeting with the IC (as shown). And we find Lily (the Witness) enthusiastically egging her on and Fatima (the Presiding Officer) belligerently interrupting and questioning her. 

This chronicle is not how PoSH Committee Members conduct Inquiry meetings. If they do, they are desecrating the sanctity of the PoSH Law. The entire organization, including the IC members, need overhauling (read training and sensitization).

Reason No. 3:  Fatima questions Ayesha thus, “Are you in a relationship with Ron? and “Is that why you live in his house?” 

She also goes on to make statements like, “But you are involved!” and “You seem to be making a lot of friends around town!” At another meeting, she calls it a “lover’s tiff.” These are assumptions!

This inquiring line is a complete no-no for a well-trained IC member who understands the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 in letter and spirit. The very first meeting is almost sacred. Its purpose is to hear the Complainant out. We should ask no questions unless it’s a W question, which facilitates the hearing process. 

And we don’t make assumptions. At all!

Reason No. 4: Fatima advocates in Deepak, the Respondent’s favor: “I have worked with Deepak. He is not a Sexual Predator.” 

Fatima, the Presiding Officer / Chairperson, has known Deepak personally for years. They are family friends. Hence, she is not fit to be an IC member inquiring into this particular case. She needs to recuse herself (step down) from the proceedings due to the conflict of interest. By speaking in his favor, she has already abused power vested in her. At a later point, she admits to Deepak, “I can’t do this. I am so sorry.” 

Yes, you can’t, Madam Chairperson!

Reason No. 5: The PoSH External Member is conspicuously missing from all of this. 

As per the PoSH Law, there must be an External Member, an independent third party, who will ensure the IC follows the Principles of Natural Justice. Though some PoSH experts may not agree, we believe that the PoSH External Member must be a part of every meeting with the Complainant, the Respondent, and the Witnesses. 

Do we need to explain why?

Reason No. 6: The CEO, Ms. Rani, meets Ayesha alone. Huh!! 

Even if this was not meant to be a part of the inquiry proceedings, the CEO meeting her to ask her questions is also wrong. Nobody should approach the Complainant till the inquiry is complete. The CEO, out of all people, should maintain the sanctity of the proceedings.

The PoSH Law mandates a quorum of 3 members, including the Presiding Officer, to conduct any inquiry meeting with any party. As already stated, the CEO cannot be a part of these meetings. 

Reason No. 7: The high-powered CEO threatens the Complainant, “You can get fired any minute.” And she will conveniently blame it on Ayesha’s work performance.

It is an exciting storyline but appalling for victims of Sexual Harassment who are contemplating filing a complaint at the workplace.  

There are many other gross digressions that I would like to highlight, but let me not butcher the suspense here. The web series Bombay Begums is worth watching, provided you don’t get misled by the drama. PoSH Committee Members must be well-trained, oriented with the PoSH Act, 2013, and sensitized towards their role. We must also sensitize them towards the Complainant, the Respondent, and the Witnesses psyche during the inquiry. 

Empathy is crucial!

Though the NCPCR has issued a legal notice to Bombay Begums to stop airing the show for its “inappropriate portrayal” of children, no authority or expert has raised concern for its “inappropriate portrayal” of the PoSH Act.

Empowering Women: Rainmaker Training & Bombay Begums

Rainmaker Training is all for dramatization in the films because it entertains the audience while driving the messages home. Our Online Training Modules also have scripts that show how the workplace treats women in reality through dramatization in a short-film format. Empowering women is a common theme that runs through Rainmaker’s Online Training Modules, WorkSafe and WorkVIBE.

While we hail the show for its exciting and realistic portrayal of today’s urban women and teenagers, why can’t we have more specific disclaimers and age-appropriate ratings that also catch the audience’s attention? Also, given how much investment of time and money that goes into scripting a series like Bombay Begums, would it be too much to ask the makers to also get the script verified by PoSH experts to ensure that the Law is correctly portrayed?

Can we?

————————————————————–

PoSH Act, 2013: The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013.

PoSH: Short for Prevention of Sexual Harassment.

IC or ICC: Internal Committee, also informally called PoSH Committee. It is constituted Vide Section 4 of the PoSH Act, 2013.

—————————————————————

References:

Explained: What is the row between Bombay Begums and the child rights body? by Ektaa Malik from Indianexpress.com

‘Bombay Begums’ review: A gripping drama about the plight of women in India’s urban realm by Sayan Ghosh from Thehindu.com

87% Indians find disclaimers in ads difficult to read, view or hear, survey finds by PIA KRISHNANKUTTY from Theprint.in

For PoSH training for employees, check out our PoSH e-module, WorkSafe DELTA trailer today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cVxAPKkGQ4

Author: Sumali Nagarajan

DISCLAIMER – No information contained in this website may be reproduced, transmitted, or copied (other than for the purposes of fair dealing, as defined in the Copyright Act, 1957) without the express written permission of Rainmaker Online Training Solutions Pvt. Ltd.