Sexual Harassment In Workplaces
Legal Framework in India
Sexual harassment at the workplace is primarily addressed under:
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Defines sexual harassment broadly, including unwelcome physical contact, advances, sexually colored remarks, and other forms of verbal or non-verbal conduct.
Mandates the creation of Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) in workplaces.
Vishaka Guidelines (1997) – Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
Before the POSH Act, these Supreme Court guidelines provided a framework for preventing sexual harassment.
Key principles include providing a safe work environment, complaint mechanisms, and accountability of employers.
Significant Judicial Precedents
1. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)
Facts:
Bhanwari Devi, a social worker, was gang-raped after intervening in a child marriage. Her employer failed to provide protection, highlighting the need for workplace protection against sexual harassment.
Legal Principle:
Supreme Court laid down the Vishaka Guidelines for preventing sexual harassment at workplaces.
Sexual harassment violates Article 14 (Equality), 15(3) (State cannot discriminate against women), and 21 (Right to life and dignity) of the Constitution.
Outcome:
Employers are vicariously responsible for harassment at the workplace.
Laid the foundation for the later POSH Act, 2013.
2. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759
Facts:
A female employee complained of sexual harassment by a senior colleague at a garment export office. The employer initially did not take adequate action.
Legal Principle:
The Court applied Vishaka Guidelines to hold employers responsible for prevention.
Sexual harassment is recognized as a violation of human rights and workplace safety standards.
Outcome:
Employers must establish a complaint mechanism.
Non-compliance can make the employer liable for damages.
3. Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2006)
Facts:
Female employees in the Mumbai municipal corporation faced workplace harassment. They complained that no formal complaint mechanism existed despite Vishaka guidelines.
Legal Principle:
Courts reiterated that state and private employers must implement internal complaint mechanisms.
The onus is on employers to create a safe environment, failing which they are liable.
Outcome:
Strengthened the duty of the employer to proactively prevent harassment.
This case influenced the formulation of POSH Act 2013.
4. Shilpa Kak v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2011, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Shilpa Kak, an employee, alleged repeated sexual harassment by her senior in BSNL. The internal complaint committee (ICC) was reluctant to act.
Legal Principle:
Even under Vishaka guidelines and early POSH provisions, employer apathy is actionable.
Sexual harassment includes both direct advances and hostile work environment created by repeated misconduct.
Outcome:
Court directed strict action against the offender and ICC members who ignored complaints.
Reinforced accountability of both perpetrator and employer.
5. R. Rajeshwari v. Union of India (2014, Karnataka High Court)
Facts:
A woman officer faced sexual harassment from her superior at a government department. Her complaints to the ICC were delayed and mishandled.
Legal Principle:
Courts highlighted that delays and negligence in investigation can compound harassment.
POSH Act mandates investigation within 90 days; violations attract penalties.
Outcome:
ICC’s failure to act led the court to direct departmental action against both the offender and negligent officials.
6. Kusum Sharma v. Union of India (2016, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
An employee alleged sexual harassment during office travel and official tours.
Legal Principle:
Sexual harassment includes conduct outside the office if it arises from employment or workplace power dynamics.
Broadened the definition of workplace harassment beyond physical office premises.
Outcome:
Court instructed the employer to implement stricter monitoring and ensure ICC covers all workplace contexts.
7. Alka Gupta v. Union of India (2017, Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Allegations included verbal and psychological harassment by a senior executive. The ICC did not act due to political influence.
Legal Principle:
POSH Act provides independence to ICC members; failure to act is a punishable offense under Section 26.
Courts reinforced that employer neutrality and procedural fairness are critical.
Outcome:
The court directed departmental inquiry and punishment for non-compliance, setting a strong precedent on ICC accountability.
Key Takeaways from These Cases
Employer Responsibility: Employers are vicariously liable for sexual harassment. Failure to act attracts legal consequences.
Definition of Sexual Harassment: Includes physical, verbal, psychological harassment, and creation of a hostile environment.
Internal Complaints Committee (ICC): Mandatory in all workplaces; must conduct fair and timely inquiry.
Workplace Scope: Harassment can occur beyond office premises, if linked to employment.
Legal Remedies: Civil remedies, departmental action, and criminal complaints under IPC Sections 354 (assault), 509 (insulting modesty) apply.
Gender Neutrality: Though POSH focuses on women, case law reinforces workplace safety for all vulnerable employees.
RELATED Blog
comments