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

purpose of the POSH Act is that no lady is harassed at the workplace: Delhi High Court Orders Swift Action on Sexual Harassment Complaint, Emphasizes POSH Act Compliance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi has delivered a crucial judgment mandating compliance with the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The court directed the formation of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to handle the petitioner’s complaint, ensuring procedural adherence even though the respondent company has wound up. This decision, by Justice Subramonium Prasad, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting workplace harassment victims and maintaining the integrity of initial witness testimonies.

The petitioner, an aggrieved woman, filed a writ petition seeking directions to ensure the formation of an ICC where she could lodge her sexual harassment complaint. Despite reporting the harassment to the police and the District Magistrate, no action was initially taken. The petitioner worked for Enlive Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., which failed to constitute an ICC, leading to her approaching the High Court for redressal.

Formation and Functioning of ICC: The court underscored the critical need for an ICC under the POSH Act to address complaints of sexual harassment. “The failure of a company to constitute an ICC cannot be a ground to leave complaints unaddressed,” observed Justice Prasad. He stressed the ongoing duty of authorities to ensure ICCs’ proper functioning even if a company ceases operations.

Protection of Petitioner’s Identity: In line with Section 16 of the POSH Act, the court ordered the petitioner’s identity to remain confidential throughout the proceedings. The judgment stated, “The name of the Petitioner shall be kept confidential and redacted. She would be referred to as the ‘Petitioner/aggrieved woman’.”

Transfer of Jurisdiction: Since the petitioner’s workplace was in Noida, the court transferred the case to the appropriate jurisdiction. The complaint, initially filed in Delhi, was forwarded to the District Magistrate (Gautam Buddha Nagar) for necessary action under the POSH Act.

The judgment reaffirmed the principles laid out in the Vishaka guidelines, mandating robust mechanisms for addressing workplace harassment. Justice Prasad reiterated that the POSH Act was enacted following the Supreme Court’s directive in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), emphasizing the need for effective enforcement of gender equality and protection against sexual harassment.

Justice Subramonium Prasad remarked, “The purpose of the POSH Act is that no lady is harassed at the workplace. The fact that Respondent No.2 has wound up does not mean that the complainants would be left remedy-less.”

The High Court’s judgment ensures the continuation of proceedings under the POSH Act, highlighting the judiciary’s proactive stance in safeguarding the rights of women in the workplace. By mandating the formation of an ICC and ensuring the anonymity of the petitioner, the court’s decision sets a significant precedent for addressing and redressing workplace harassment. This judgment not only upholds the principles of justice but also reinforces the legal framework established to protect victims of sexual harassment at work.

Date of Decision: May 24, 2024

AGGRIEVED WOMAN VS STATE OF DELHI & ANR

Latest Legal News