Registration Of FIR Is Mandatory If Information Ex Facie Discloses Commission Of  Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court 'No Res Judicata': Supreme Court Holds Rejection Of Section 156(3) CrPC Plea Is No Bar To Subsequent Registration Of FIR Auto Dealers' Referral Charges From Banks & Insurers Constitute 'Business Auxiliary Service', But No Penalty If Tax Paid Before Show Cause Notice: Supreme Court MACT | Appellate Courts Must Liberally Admit Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC To Compute 'Just Compensation': Supreme Court MACT | Post-Accident Vehicle Position On Sketch Cannot Be Sole Basis To Infer Contributory Negligence: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹50.8 Lakhs 'Sanction Under Section 19(1)(c) PC Act Must Be Granted By Removing Authority': Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction Mere Recovery Of Money Cannot Resurrect Prosecution Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Awards Without Signatures Of All Rival Claimants Are Invalid, Order I Rule 8 CPC Inapplicable: Supreme Court Lok Adalat Cannot Decide Title Disputes, Mere Physical Possession Doesn't Prove Ownership": Supreme Court Quashes Land Acquisition Awards Power Discoms Can't Escape Liability: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Damages For Death Caused By Snapped Live Wires Lying On Ground Extra-Judicial Confessions To Village Administrative Officers Cannot Be Accepted As Gospel Truth Without Signatures And Corroboration: Madras High Court Acquits Murder Accused 'Article 21 Trumps UAPA Rigors': Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To PFI Members After 5 Years In Jail Due To 'Sluggish' Trial" Daughters Cannot Be Denied Equal Share: Orissa High Court Upholds Compensation Apportionment In Favor Of Daughters Under Hindu Succession Act Cannot Reopen Closed Chapter Years Later: Calcutta High Court Dismisses BSF Ex-Head Constable's Plea Claiming Voluntary Retirement Was Extracted Under Coercion Long-Standing Relationship And Public Recognition Prove Valid Marriage: Karnataka High Court Upholds Second Wife's Right To 1/3rd Share In Property Collector Becomes Functus Officio Once Duty Is Determined: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Penalty On Stamp Duty Deficiency Eyewitness Testimony Contradicted By Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Woman In IPC 302 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.

Latest Legal News