Women’s access to grievance redressal mechanisms
✅ Introduction:
Grievance Redressal Mechanisms (GRMs) are formal and informal systems through which individuals can raise concerns or complaints about rights violations, discrimination, harassment, or denial of services. For women, especially in India, access to such mechanisms is crucial due to systemic inequalities, gender-based violence, and workplace discrimination.
Access to grievance redressal is recognized under constitutional provisions (like Articles 14, 15, and 21), various statutes, and judicial precedents. However, challenges persist in terms of awareness, implementation, and socio-cultural barriers.
📌 Types of Grievance Redressal Mechanisms for Women in India:
Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) under the POSH Act (2013)
National and State Commissions for Women
Legal redress through police and judiciary
Human Rights Commissions
Ombudsman in sectors like banking, education, healthcare
Online grievance portals (e.g., She-Box, CPGRAMS)
🧑⚖️ Key Case Laws on Women's Access to Grievance Redressal Mechanisms:
Below are five landmark and illustrative case laws that highlight the evolution, importance, and challenges of grievance redressal mechanisms for women in India:
1. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011)
➤ Facts:
A social worker, Bhanwari Devi, was gang-raped while trying to stop a child marriage in Rajasthan.
There was no effective redressal mechanism for workplace sexual harassment.
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court laid down the “Vishaka Guidelines”, the first formal framework to deal with sexual harassment at the workplace.
Recognized the absence of domestic law on this issue.
Held that Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 must be interpreted to include gender equality and protection from sexual harassment.
Directed every workplace to set up a redressal mechanism.
➤ Importance:
Pioneered the legal recognition of grievance redress for women facing sexual harassment.
Led to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
2. Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 297
➤ Facts:
A PIL was filed highlighting non-implementation of Vishaka Guidelines across government and private sectors.
➤ Judgment:
The Supreme Court issued strict directions to all states and organizations to constitute Internal Complaints Committees (ICC).
Stated that failure to implement the guidelines would be viewed as contempt of court.
➤ Importance:
Reinforced institutional accountability for redress mechanisms.
Made grievance redress systems legally enforceable in workplaces.
3. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759
➤ Facts:
A female employee accused her superior of sexual harassment. He was exonerated by the departmental inquiry.
The council challenged his reinstatement.
➤ Judgment:
Supreme Court held that even unwelcome physical advances fall under sexual harassment.
Reiterated that employers have a duty to ensure a safe working environment.
Expanded the scope of "sexual harassment" in light of the Vishaka judgment.
➤ Importance:
Affirmed women’s right to dignity and safety at the workplace.
Encouraged grievance mechanisms to assess not just overt actions but subtle power-based harassment.
4. Lilu @ Rajesh and Anr. v. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 643
➤ Facts:
Concerned the two-finger test used on rape survivors.
A survivor was subjected to degrading physical tests, which impacted her dignity.
➤ Judgment:
Supreme Court held that such tests violate a woman's right to privacy and dignity under Article 21.
Directed all medical professionals and investigating agencies to avoid re-traumatizing the victim.
➤ Importance:
Linked grievance redress with sensitive handling by institutions.
Brought focus on procedural justice, not just substantive rights.
5. Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. (2020) 7 SCC 469
➤ Facts:
Case involved denial of permanent commission to women in the Indian Army.
Discriminatory policies prevented women from accessing career advancement and redress.
➤ Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled in favor of gender equality, stating that administrative discrimination is constitutionally impermissible.
Highlighted the need for equal opportunity, and proper mechanisms to address bias and exclusion.
➤ Importance:
Extended the scope of grievance redress beyond harassment to institutional discrimination.
Emphasized systemic reform and the role of the judiciary in enforcing rights.
✍️ Analysis:
These judgments reveal that grievance redressal for women:
Is not just about providing a forum for complaint, but ensuring dignity, equality, and justice.
Needs sensitivity, awareness, and institutional commitment.
Is often triggered only after judicial intervention, highlighting implementation gaps.
⚖️ Challenges in Access to Grievance Redressal Mechanisms:
Lack of Awareness – Many women are unaware of their rights or the mechanisms available.
Fear of Retaliation – Especially in workplaces or rural areas.
Delayed Justice – Judicial backlog discourages victims from pursuing legal remedies.
Societal Stigma – Cultural barriers often silence women.
Non-functional or Biased Committees – ICCs sometimes lack independence or training.
✅ Recommendations for Effective Grievance Redress:
Mandatory training for ICC members and government staff.
Regular audits of grievance mechanisms in institutions.
Legal aid and psychological support for complainants.
Gender sensitization in police and judiciary.
Use of technology – Anonymous reporting portals, online hearings.
🔚 Conclusion:
Women’s access to grievance redressal mechanisms is essential for enforcing their constitutional and human rights. Indian jurisprudence has steadily expanded the scope of such mechanisms—from protection against sexual harassment to addressing structural inequalities. However, effective implementation, institutional sensitivity, and social support remain key to making these mechanisms truly accessible and just.
RELATED Blog
0 comments