PoSH Bulletin

July 2, 2021
Prevention of Sexual Harassment
2 min read
the-mandate-on-confidentiality-gleaning-from-the-judiciary

Almost mid-way into 2021, here are a few important developments that took place in the world of PoSH compliance:

  • The Calcutta High Court on 27th November 2020, has held that the PoSH Act should also address complaints against same-sex perpetrators. The Court said that sexual harassment is not a static concept and needs to be interpreted keeping the current social context in mind. This could be a turning point for PoSH related grievances.
  • The Sikkim High Court on 8th December 2020, has ordered the Executive Committee constituted by UGC to hear the appeal and decide on whether or not, the wedding party at a hotel would qualify as a workplace for the reason that two colleagues were present together. This could drastically widen the scope of the PoSH Act and help protect women even when not at the workplace. Cases that have occurred during the current pandemic’s WFH scenario, stand to benefit from this interpretation of the law!
  • The Delhi High Court, on 16th December 2020, held that ‘Moral Policing’ is not the job of the Management or the IC. Any consensual relationship among adults would not be the concern of the Management or the IC, so long as the said relationship does not affect the working and the discipline of the organisation and is not contrary to the Rules or code of conduct binding on the said employees.
  • In a watershed moment, on 17th February 2021, Priya Ramani was acquitted of criminal charges in the MJ Akbar case upholding that women cannot be punished for raising their voice against sexual harassment on the pretext of criminal complaint of defamation.
  • On 26 April 2021, an IAF officer had filed a case before the J&K High Court alleging that the IAF did not perform the duties of an ideal employer by not assisting the Complainant in lodging a complaint or FIR with the police for sexual harassment. She further stated that the IC had conducted the proceedings in a manner that is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Complainant did not get the right to cross-examine the Respondent or his witnesses, but she and her witnesses were subjected to cross-examination for six days. The matter is sub judice.
  • A PIL has been filed before the Bombay High Court seeking protection for members of the IC on grounds that the members have not been provided with any safeguards and that, although, the members have been conferred quasi-judicial powers, they do not have the requisite independence and that this creates a highly unjust and iniquitous situation for IC members as well the parties to the case.
  • On 31st March 2021, the Industries, Energy and Labour Department of Maharashtra issued a notification appointing the Appellate Authority under the PoSH Act. There are now 20 Industrial Courts, which shall act as Appellate Authority under the POSH Act in respect of Industrial Establishments that fall under State jurisdiction. This step should now help the aggrieved parties to approach the appropriate authority in case of an appeal.

    Author: Rakhi MohantyDISCLAIMER – 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.
Contact Us