"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Delhi High Court Upholds Protection Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Irrespective of Departmental Boundaries

04 September 2024 10:13 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, Delhi High Court emphasizing the need for robust protection against sexual harassment at the workplace, regardless of the departmental affiliation of the alleged perpetrator. The judgment, reiterates the importance of upholding women's rights to equality, life, and dignity in every aspect of professional life.

The judgment centered around the interpretation of provisions in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (SHW Act). The court firmly held that the objectives of the SHW Act are "harasser-neutral" and must not be compromised. It stated, "In an era where women are equalling, if not outnumbering, men in professional achievements, there can be no compromise on any of these objectives."

The court further clarified that the SHW Act does not limit its scope only to cases of sexual harassment occurring between employees in the same office. It extends its applicability to situations where the alleged perpetrator is employed in a different department. The judgment highlighted that such an interpretation would uphold the ethos and philosophy of the SHW Act, ensuring a safe and secure working environment for women.

"The working environment is required to be as safe and secure for women as it is for men. Even an apprehension, by a woman, that her safety might be compromised or endangered in the workplace is, therefore, abhorrent to our constitutional ethos," the judgment stated.

The court also examined the provisions of Section 13 of the SHW Act, which mandates forwarding the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to the employer. It concluded that if the employer who has the disciplinary control over the alleged perpetrator belongs to a different department, there is no hindrance to the ICC forwarding its findings to that employer for appropriate action.

The judgment emphasized that the SHW Act aims to protect women's constitutional rights and eliminate discrimination and violence based on gender. It underlined the duty of employers to take prompt and appropriate action against perpetrators, irrespective of their departmental affiliation. Quoting the judgment, "Action must be initiated against the perpetrator, even if the aggrieved woman desires so, where the perpetrator is not an employee, in the workplace at which the incident of sexual harassment took place."

The ruling provides clarity and reinforces the comprehensive nature of the SHW Act in safeguarding the rights and dignity of women in the workplace. It sets a strong precedent for ensuring a safe and inclusive working environment, furthering gender equality, and promoting women's empowerment.

Date of Decision: 30.06.2023.

Dr Sohail Malik vs Union Of India and Anr.

Similar News