Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting 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