138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

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