Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay 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