This article is written by Rupali Sharma of 5th semester of The Law School, University of Jammu, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
Abstract
This article is an important reminder to organizations of the importance of preventing workplace harassment. It supports the important role of strong POSH laws, preventive measures and a commitment to a safe and inclusive workplace. This article delves into the legal intricacies surrounding the landmark case of Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India,[1] a key legal battle to prevent sexual harassment of women in the workplace. The case, which unfolded against a backdrop of evolving social norms and legislative progress, marks a critical milestone in workplace safety and gender justice jurisprudence.
The aim of the article is to offer an exact view of the case of Dr. Sohail Malik and highlight its importance in shaping the discourse on preventing and addressing sexual harassment in workplaces in India.
Keywords
Sexual harassment, jurisprudence, obligations, gender justice, workplace safety, harassment- free environment.
Introduction
Sexual violence is a serious and deep-rooted problem that transcends geography, culture and socioeconomics and affects people from all walks of life. Recognizing the urgent need to address this issue in the workplace, countries around the world have implemented laws to protect people from harassment and create an environment conducive to respect, dignity and equality.[2] One of the important laws is the Law on the Prevention of Sexual Violence, which aims to support victims, raise awareness and make the workplace a place free of sexual harassment.
The law surrounding sexual harassment in the workplace has evolved, with significant cases leading to change. Among them, Dr. Sohail Malik v. The Union of India emerged as an important and shining moment at the intersection of law, gender and professionalism. This article unpacks its intricacies and explores its profound impact on preventing harassment against women in the workplace in India. This case is a highlight of many cases of harassment against women in the workplace.
The article examines the implications of judgment for the development of workplace policies, the role of internal grievance mechanisms and employers’ obligations to provide a safe and harassment-free environment. It also deals with the socio-legal implications of the case and sheds light on its potential impact on social perception, attitudes and empowerment of women in professional spheres. The article contributes to the ongoing dialogue on gender justice, equality in the workplace and the evolving role of the judiciary in promoting a safe and inclusive professional environment.
Facts of the case
This document is a complaint by an official of the Food and Public Distribution Wing of the Ministry of Consumers and Public Distribution. In the complaint, plaintiff Dr. Sohail Malik had sexually harassed the first one. The petitioner is a Revenue Officer of India, 2010.[3]
The complaint is firstly forwarded to the Internal Complaint Committee established in the workplace within the scope of Article 9 of the Law on the Prevention of Violence Against Women in the Workplace.
The ICC scheduled a hearing on June 22, 2023 to hear the complaint and notification on June 13, 2023 and directed the petitioner to appear for the hearing before the said date. The petitioner did not attend the meeting but approached the learned court at the Department of Justice,[4] Central Government, New Delhi, challenging the decision of the ICC to hear the complaint. The court rejected the petition and rejected the appeal. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court.
Issues Raised
Two questions were asked before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows:
- Whether a woman working in one department of the Government of India and being harassed by an employee of another department has the right to seek POSH policy.
- Even if the ICC of a department has the right to notify employees of other departments.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that problems would arise if the ICC, where the plaintiffs reside, investigated the allegations against them. According to Article 13 of the POSH Act, the ICC report must be sent to the “employer” for further disciplinary action.[5]But the “employer” as defined in clause 2(g) is the head of the disgruntled department and has no authority over the dissatisfied person, counsel said. Therefore, it is claimed that the ICC report will be invalid since there is no action to form a basis and for the application of the Law, the workplace subject to complaint and the perpetrator of harassment are the same.
The petitioners also relied on the Bill and Section 17 of the Act to protect women from sexual harassment at the workplace and to prevent and resolve complaints regarding sexual harassment and other related incidents. Violence against women violates women’s fundamental right to equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, their right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and their right to practice or engage in any profession. . Trade, business or employment, including the right to a safe space free from harassment.
Contentions of the Respondent
Lawyers for the defendants said that once the investigation is completed, the internal committee or local committee, as the case may be, must submit a report on the findings to the property owner or field staff within ten days after the investigation is completed. The report must be shared with those concerned.[6] If the internal committee or district committee finds that the charges against the defendant are not proven, the employer and district employee will be advised of what to do. Alternatively, if the committee decides that the claim has merit, it must recommend appropriate action to the employer or area manager. The respondent’s counsel said that if the petitioner’s claim is accepted, it would mean that women police officers would be subjected to harassment by their colleagues in the department and would also have the option of seeking relief under the POSH Act. However, there is no such remedy if the harassment was committed by an officer of another department simply because he was working under a different “employer” and was not approved by the department in which the petitioner worked.
Findings and Observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has made it clear that at a time when women are equal to men in every aspect of performance, it will not be affected by this for the purpose of the POSH Act. An interpretation of the provisions of the POSH Act that prevents or prevents the full achievement and fulfilment of the objective of ensuring women’s occupational security should be avoided. The Supreme Court has observed in many public views that the purpose of the POSH Act is but not limited to ensuring that women’s rights to equality, life and liberty are not affected or hindered, to ensure safe and friendly work, to ensure equality in work. , ensure that women are treated with respect, fairness and dignity
Also, the court ruled in Shailesh Dhairyawan v. Mohan Balkrishna Lulla[7] and Richa Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh[8] and said. The objective interpretation of law has replaced the law of the meaning of law as the golden rule of interpretation of law.
“The principle of “contextual interpretation” or “purposive interpretation” is based on the understanding that courts should give meaning to the context that serves the “purpose behind the content.”
The Court also interpreted Section 11(1) of the POSH Act, stating that the use of the words “according to the law of notification applicable to the defendant” .
Therefore, a female employee of a department is harassed by an employee of another department, the POSH Act may apply. Also, therefore, the court does not limit the application of Section 11(1) of the POSH Act to employees working in various departments. Therefore, the ICC of one department may notify employees of other departments.[9]
The court determined that the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act does not exempt men from consequences if they sexually harass women in offices different from their own workplaces. It clarified that Section 11(1) of the POSH Act is not limited to situations where the accused, facing sexual harassment allegations, is an employee of the same workplace as the complainant. This section specifies that the accused employee before an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) should be an “employee,” and in the present case, the petitioner qualified as an employee, albeit in another department of the Government of India.
The court also emphasized that the definition of “employer” In Section 2(g) of the POSH Act is not confined to “an employee who complains of sexual harassment.” It should be interpreted to encompass the employer of the workplace where the alleged harasser is employed. The court concluded that there is no prohibition on forwarding the ICC’s recommendations from the complainant’s workplace to a different employer who has disciplinary authority over the employee accused of harassment. Such an employer can take action based on the ICC’s report.[10]
Additionally, the court noted that Section 19(h) of the POSH Act, outlining the duties of an employer, permits a complainant to initiate action in the workplace even if the accused employee is not an “employee” of the complainant’s workplace.
Judgment
The court adopted the principle of objective interpretation in interpreting the POSH (Prevention of Harassment) Act. He stated that the POSH Bill was an important piece of “legislation to improve the health of the population”. This means that it should not be interpreted in a way that defeats the purpose of the POSH Act or results in unfair or unjust practices. The court added that the POSH Act aims to, inter alia, protect women’s rights to equality, life and liberty and protect them from gender-based violence. This law also aims to ensure that all women have a safe workplace that will protect them from all forms of harassment. The court said the entire purpose of the POSH Act was to vindicate the individuality of the harasser and the concerns even of women that their workplace safety would be affected in line with the spirit of the Constitution. The court rejected the petition an” postponed the ICC hearing to July 4, 2023. The petitioner is entitled to more time to prepare his statement and presentation before the Commission
Conclusion
This document focuses on the interpretation of the Violence Against Women in the Workplace Act in the case of harassment that occurred in the workplace, which is not the plaintiff’s workplace.
Scope of the DSI Act: The text states that the provisions of the POSH Act are not limited to situations where a woman is harassed by other employees in her office. He argued that nothing in the POSH Act excluded its applicability if the defendant was employed elsewhere.
Section 11(1) Review: The debate focuses on Section 11(1) of the POSH Act and agrees with the Court that the application of this section is not limited to situations where a person is accused of sexual harassment. Situation working in the same department as the complainant.[11]
Rule 13 and Employer Responsibilities: Chapter 13 The Employer Advice under Chapter 13 provides that the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) will submit that the employer’s decision was appropriate. However, there are concerns that Article 13 will not be effective if the employer (in this case the manager of the workplace where the complainant works) does not impose disciplinary punishment on the defendant.[12]
Limited area: The text rejects the interpretation of the existence of a limited area in the POSH Act. He objected to reading an exception that would prevent defendants from working at more than one location.
Progress on ICC hearing: The petitioners also stated that the date of the ICC hearing has been set earlier than the original date. He sought a reset date and additional time to appear before the ICC.
In summary, the analysis demonstrates the broad applicability of the POSH Act to cases of sexual harassment occurring in a variety of workplaces and rejects limitation. Sexual harassment is not permitted as harassment in the workplace.[13] The text also refers to specific legal provisions such as Articles 11(1) and 13 when addressing concerns about employers’ liability for non-disciplinary actions against defendants. Additionally, procedural issues regarding the early handling of ICC hearings have also raised concerns.
References
[1] Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 8624/2023
[6] https://www.indiankanoon.com
[7] 2016 (1) ABR 63
[8] AIR 2016 SC 753,
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
