Conciliation: A Tool, Not an Obligation – A Critique of the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Interpretation of Section 10 of the PoSH Act

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s recent judgment regarding the procedural approach under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) raises significant concerns about the interpretation of Section 10 of the Act. The decision, which emphasizes mandatory conciliation attempts before initiating an inquiry, arguably misinterprets the legislative intent, undermining the complainant’s autonomy and potentially weakening protections under the Act.

Overview of the Judgment

In a case involving allegations of sexual harassment against an assistant professor at the Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, the court quashed disciplinary actions citing procedural lapses. It asserted that Section 10 obligates the Internal Committee (IC) to attempt conciliation before proceeding with an inquiry. The court suggested this step was mandatory to meet the complainant’s sense of justice through less adversarial means such as apologies or settlements.

Legislative Intent and the Literal Rule of Interpretation

The PoSH Act provides that conciliation can be initiated only “at the request of the complainant” (Section 10). This wording is critical. By employing the literal rule of interpretation—a principle that requires reading the text as it is written—the Act clearly places the prerogative for initiating conciliation with the complainant, not the IC. If lawmakers intended conciliation to be mandatory, they would have explicitly stated so in the provision.

Instead, the Act’s language ensures the complainant retains control over whether conciliation is pursued. This autonomy is essential, as the purpose of the PoSH Act is to provide a safe, unbiased mechanism for addressing workplace harassment, respecting the agency of the aggrieved who might otherwise face undue pressure to reconcile with perpetrators.

Risks of Mandatory Conciliation

Making conciliation a mandatory obligation of the IC risks subverting the very purpose of the PoSH Act. Several issues arise:

1. Coercion and Undue Influence: While the Act prohibits coercion during conciliation, interpreting the provision as mandating attempts to settle inherently pressures complainants, particularly in workplaces with unequal power dynamics. This interpretation risks turning a protective mechanism into a tool that inadvertently shields perpetrators.
2. Chilling Effect on Reporting: If complainants perceive that their grievances will be funneled into settlement processes regardless of the severity of the harassment, they may hesitate to report incidents. This outcome undermines the Act’s goal of fostering a workplace free from harassment.
3. Respondent’s Leverage: Allowing mandatory conciliation gives respondents an advantage to pressure complainants into unfavorable settlements. This dynamic not only compromises justice in the individual case but discourages systemic accountability for workplace harassment.

Precedential Concerns

The judgment sets a troubling precedent by prioritizing procedural convenience over substantive justice. It effectively shifts focus from the complainant’s choice to the IC’s procedural mandate, creating room for misuse and weakening the protections intended under the PoSH Act.

Moreover, the judgment disregards safeguards built into the Act, which allows conciliation only if requested by the complainant and provides for subsequent inquiries if settlement terms are not honored. This misinterpretation may lead to legal and procedural inconsistencies in future cases.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s interpretation of Section 10 warrants critical scrutiny. Courts must recognize the PoSH Act as a protective statute aimed at empowering the aggrieved, not perpetuating institutional convenience. To align with the Act’s spirit, the following steps are necessary:

1. Reinforce Complainant Autonomy: Ensure that ICs act only upon explicit requests for conciliation and respect the complainant’s choice of redressal.
2. Judicial Training on PoSH: Promote judicial understanding of workplace dynamics and the legislative intent of the PoSH Act to avoid misinterpretations.
3. Clarification through Amendments: Even though the law is categorical and clear, the Lawmakers should consider amendments to reinforce the voluntary nature of conciliation under Section 10, addressing ambiguities in implementation, if any, based on the review of the trends and application of the Law. 

By adhering to the literal interpretation and the underlying purpose of the PoSH Act, courts and ICs can create a safer, more equitable workplace environment where justice is not compromised for procedural expedience.