Medha Kotwal Lele vs Union of India

Background

This lawsuit is part of an ongoing effort in India’s courts and legislature to address the issue of sexual harassment of women in the workplace. The Supreme Court of India ruled in 1997 that women needed protections against sexual harassment in the workplace to exercise their constitutional rights to life (with dignity), to equality, and to practise any profession or occupation (Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others[1]. The Court held that a “affective alternative mechanism” was necessary to avoid abuses of these basic rights in the workplace in the absence of legal protections. In order to help with the prevention and resolution of sexual harassment in the workplace, the Court issued recommendations (the “Vishaka Guidelines”). They detail the steps that businesses must take to prohibit and prevent sexual harassment and to address incidents when they do occur. The Court ruled that the Vishaka Guidelines should be considered a declaration of law until the Parliament passed protective legislation.

Since then, in September 2012, the “Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill 2010” was approved by the Lok Sabha (the lower house of Parliament) in an effort to give the necessary protection. The higher chamber of Parliament, the Rajya Sabha, has not yet passed it, hence it is not yet law.

Facts

The current case was initiated by an appeal filed with the Court by Medha Kotwal Lele, the facilitator of Aalochana, a centre for the documentation and examination of women, and other women’s rights organisations, among others, alleging widespread inappropriate behaviour and a failure to fully implement the Vishaka Directives.

Candidates said that the Vishaka Guidelines were being violated in both letter and spirit by state officials who harassed women workers via legal and unlawful means, causing them to suffer and degrading their nobility despite the legislation protecting them from such treatment. Medha Kotwal stated her discontent with the Vishaka Guidelines and outlined the instances of sexual harassment she had experienced in a letter she sent.

The Supreme Court turned the letter into a writ petition in an effort to oversee the Vishaka Guidelines’ implementation throughout the nation. The Court requested affirmations from State Governments detailing the measures they had taken to execute the Guidelines. According to the outcomes, several of the states performed poorly.

Issue

When it comes to implementing the Vishaka Guidelines and other Court rulings, the question becomes whether or not particular state governments have done so.

Judgement

The court referred to the Beijing Platform for Action, which stated that “violence against women is a crime, depriving women of their human rights and freedoms” and that “women and girls suffer to a greater or lesser degree in every society”. and mobbing across income, in the classroom, and across cultural boundaries.”

criticized India’s poor track record on gender equality, she continued, “We have made a lot of progress towards gender equality in local self-government, but the representation of women in Parliament and Legislature is unsatisfactory because women only 10 – 11% of all seats Equality and justice for women, in the UN’s Gender Equality Index, India ranks 129 out of 147 countries. They affirmed that women will not be harassed and that all states are committed to gender equality. Court No.

decided to apply the Visaka Law “in form, substance and spirit” to ensure gender equality, to ensure respect and dignity for women in office.

The guidelines Vishaka says are aimed at reducing harassment against women and should be followed by all parents. The Supreme Court numbered

has decided that many states are not sufficient in this regard. On January 17, 2006, he reported the conclusion that Vishaka’s instructions were not implemented by various states and departments in India and that the instructions he gave at that time were to facilitate cooperation and development. The court added that some states failed to comply with the previous order of the court to bring their laws in line with Vishaka guidelines. He noted that some states have made some changes to their laws, but not all changes are necessary, while others are seeing less of a start.

The court reiterated that violence should be prevented. “Living life, wanting nothing, laziness and lawlessness and crime are not enough to support half of our population – women” is one of the key points. Therefore, it was decided that the Vishaka Statement No.

should not only be indicative, but should also be followed as a guide until the Bill becomes law. Because the court found that some states were not following the guidelines, it decided that:

Within two months of the decision, state:

• Make necessary changes to CCS policies and procedures;

• Ensure that all states have adequate grievance committees to hear grievances and are chaired by women; and

• There are procedures to ensure the effectiveness of the Vishaka Law. Medical Council of India, Construction Management Board, Institute of Chartered Accountants, Companies House and other statutory bodies are also responsible for enforcing Vishaka’s terms between groups and persons related or affiliated with them.

Finally, the court said that in case of non-compliance with the Visa Report, the court decision or the court’s attitude, the concerned should apply to the high court of the relevant state.

Analysis

Not only does the Court in Medha restate Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[2], but it also adds its own reasoning. It acknowledges the potential for legal action seeking the enforcement of court rulings. HRLN’s creator, Colin Gonsalves, has said that despite the fact that the rules were established a long time ago, they have not been put into practise. This ruling is an effort at coercion, and it brings back the long-forgotten rules. While a few specific examples of sexual harassment in the workplace are highlighted, the fundamental issue here is the ineffective application of the Vishaka recommendations. It is said that the whole intent and purpose of the Vishaka recommendations have been undermined due to the States’ and employers’ lackadaisical approach towards building effective and comprehensive procedure in text and spirit of the guidelines.

Conclusion

The woman’s job performance suffered as a result of the harsh and unwelcoming atmosphere produced by the sexual harassment. In addition to the physical, emotional, and mental toll it took, it also stunted their social and economic development. In 1997, the Supreme Court of India issued the Vishaka Guidelines in the Vishaka Judgement.

Workers have a legal right to a harassment-free workplace, and sexual harassment is a major threat to it. Therefore, businesses and organisations must take the lead in putting measures in place to completely eradicate sexual harassment from all levels of operations. The POSH Act successfully creates a secure setting for women to work in both the physical and digital realms. Protecting women’s rights in the workplace will be greatly aided if the suggestions in the guidelines are put into practise.

One of the many negative aspects of the transition towards a remote work paradigm in associations is the possibility of sexual assault. All of a company’s representatives are geographically near together thanks to the advent of remote work. This boosts the frequency with which people utilise electronic communication for business or pleasure. Workplace harassment of women has become increasingly pervasive in the digital era, with perpetrators often mistaking the anonymity of text messages, video chats, and the internet for a lack of serious consequences. Chiefs aren’t reading every communication from every meeting, so it won’t make it into the internet correspondence channels.

As a consequence of the epidemic, a lot of women are dealing with this kind of harassment for the first time. They don’t like it when their boss prys into their personal lives by asking them what they’re wearing, calling them at odd hours of the night, or pressuring them to attend after-hours Zoom parties on a full-body visual.

Women are often unsure of their rights and whether they should speak out if they experience harassment in their virtual workplace. Because of this, many women who have been wronged tend to bottle up their emotions, which may result in health problems, underperformance, and worry.

---

[1] (1997) 6 SCC 241

[2] 6SCC 241, 1997