Executing Court Cannot Go Behind The Decree To Amend Material Discrepancies In Property Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 216 CrPC | No Vested Right For Accused To Seek Alteration Of Charge; Court’s Power Is Exclusive And Discretionary: Jharkhand High Court Violation Of Examination Instructions Regarding OMR Sheets Warrants Mandatory Cancellation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Spurious Pesticides Ruin Lives: Telangana High Court Upholds Detention Of 'Insecticide Offender' For Endangering Public Order No Double Jeopardy In Service Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Treating Suspension Period As 'Non-Duty' After Employee Pleaded Guilty Advocates Have No Right To Call For Boycott; Any Such Call Or Obstruction Of Court Work Amounts To Contempt Of Court: Telangana High Court Failure To Establish 'Soon Before Death' Cruelty Precludes Conviction Under Section 304B IPC: Patna High Court Repeated False Police Complaints And Reckless Allegations Against Spouse Constitute Mental Cruelty Entitling Husband To Divorce: Madras High Court State Cannot Deny Arrears Of Pension Merely On Grounds Of Delay Without Considering Medical Evidence: Kerala High Court Allegations Of Continuous Sexual Harassment And Intimidation Require Trial; Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed On Plea Of Previous Enmity: Karnataka High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Locus Standi As 'Payee': Himachal Pradesh High Court Advocate-Client Privilege Does Not Grant Immunity From Investigation Into Personal Involvement In Alleged Offence: Delhi High Court Section 302 IPC | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained When Prosecution Fails To Identify Which Specific Accused Delivered Fatal Blow In Group Clash: Gujarat High Court Statutory Interest Under Section 28 Land Acquisition Act Cannot Be Denied For Delay In Filing Amendment Application: Delhi High Court

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