MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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.

Latest Legal News