The RTI Act 2005 : an essential ingredient for POSH and its implementation

The aim of the Right To Information (RTI) Act 2005 is to promote transparency and accountability in the administration of complaints. The objective of the RTI Act harmonises perfectly with that of the Sexual Harassment of Women (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) (POSH) Act 2013. Female employees who have registered a complaint with their concerned Internal / Local Complaints Committee can request the status of their complaint. They can also seek specific documents to be disclosed to them, for the purposes of their case. This disclosure, while allowed to the parties to the complaint, are strictly withheld from third parties, to ensure maximum confidentiality. The below decisions are instances where the POSH Act and the RTI Act have worked in unison in an effort to assure women’s empowerment at the workplace. 

Reshma M.G. v. CPIO, All India Radio

Citation: Reshma MG v. All India Radio(Central Information Commission, Calicut, CIC/AIRCL/A/2017/101742/SD

Highlights : 

• Section 16 of the POSH Act prohibits disclosure of information to press, media and the public alone, and not the parties to the complaint.
• The parties to the complaint should not be denied information in relation to the complaint and proceedings of the ICC

Facts : 

By an application under the RTI Act, the appellant had sought the true copies of the documents submitted by the respondent to the ICC. The respondent had submitted these documents in defence of the case of sexual harassment. The appellant approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) on the grounds that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had not disclosed the desired information.

Issue : 

Whether the documents provided by the respondent to the ICC for defending the case of sexual harassment can be accessed by the appellant under RTI. 

Judgement : 

The CIC held that the victim of an incident of sexual harassment can access information regarding her complaint through the RTI Act. The ICC was directed to provide all the available information to the appellant within 15 days of the order.

Rationale : 

The CIC stated that the interpretation of the provisions of the POSH Act is to be done in light of the legislative purpose behind the Act. Since the POSH Act seeks to protect women from harassment at the workplace, section 16 of the Act should also be interpreted in the manner which best protects the victim. The CIC interpreted section 16 of the Act as prohibiting disclosure to the press, media and public only; there was no reason why the parties having proximate nexus to the proceedings should be denied access to the information.  

Puspanjali Padhy v. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank

Citation: Puspanjali Padhy v. Indian Overseas Bank (Central Information Commission, New Delhi, CIC/SH/A/2015/000235

Highlights : 

• The parties to the complaint ought to be provided all available information with regards to the proceedings. 
• It is the responsibility of the employer to provide the applicant with the required information, to mitigate further distress. 

Facts : 

The appellant had registered a complaint of sexual harassment with the ICC, and then requested certain details regarding her complaint from the CPIO of the organisation. The CPIO advised her to approach the ICC with the request for disclosure, under section 13 of the POSH Act. He also said that he could not provide such information, as it would violate section 13 of the POSH Act. Section 13 provides that the ICC should furnish the findings report to the employer within 10 days of its decision, which should subsequently be made available to the concerned parties. 

His other reasons for denying the appellant this information, were section 16 of the POSH Act and section 8(1) of the RTI Act, which exempt disclosure of information under certain circumstances. Section 16 of the POSH Act prohibits the publication of the inquiry proceedings, the identity or addresses of the concerned parties and witnesses, advice given by the ICC to the aggrieved woman, or the action prescribed by the ICC to the parties. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act exempts the disclosure of information to parties in specific circumstances.

Issue : 

Whether the CPIO can be obliged to provide a report of the findings of the ICC to the appellant victim. 

Judgement : 

The CIC directed the respondent CPIO to furnish the findings report. It also ordered the CPIO to pay a token compensation of Rs. 10,000 to the appellant, for the compounded harassment caused by denying the information sought by her.

Rationale : 

The CIC observed that the CPIO could not cite section 16 of the POSH Act, since it does not prohibit disclosure of information to the concerned parties themselves. Therefore, the CPIO could not deny the appellant victim information regarding the finding and proceedings. Further, the CIC also found that the CPIO had ignored section 13(1) of the POSH Act, which requires the employer to make the report available to the concerned parties, without those parties having to make a demarche in that regard. Finally, the CIC found that section 8(1) of the RTI Act is applicable only in specific circumstances, which the CPIO failed to satisfy in this case. Therefore, he could not be exempted from making the information available to the concerned parties.  

Shri LaluVarghese v. CPIO, State Bank of India

Citation: Lalu Varghese v. State Bank of India (Central Information Commission, New Delhi, CIC/MP/A/2014/001168

Highlights : 

• No person other than the victim herself has the locus standi to register a complaint of sexual harassment. 
• Only the two parties to the plaint can access information regarding the plaint.

Facts : 

The appellant, the husband of a victim of sexual harassment had submitted an RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of India requesting a copy of the enquiry report on his complaint lodged 4 months earlier, and the status report pertaining to it. The respondents denied the appellant this information, stating that they had already communicated the findings of the ICC to his wife, i.e the victim. They further cited section 16 of the POSH Act, to say that any information regarding the inquiry proceedings could not be disclosed to the appellant, for confidentiality and privacy reasons. 

Issue : 

Whether the husband of a victim of sexual harassment can access the details regarding the ICC proceedings.

Judgement :

The CIC held that the husband did not have the locus standi to file a complaint on behalf of his wife, and he could not request information regarding the same. However, the CPIO was directed to pass a speaking order on the appellant’s RTI within one week of hearing the order. 

Rationale : 

The Commission observed that section 16 was introduced in the POSH Act to maintain confidentiality of the information regarding identity, proceedings and the findings of the ICC. The words “public, press and media” were interpreted to mean any third party to the complaint. Only the members adjourning the matter and the two parties to the complaint themselves should have access to the details of the proceedings. The appellant’s wife, the victim of the incident, had already received the report stating the findings of the ICC. The CPIO was not obliged to furnish the information sought by the appellant.  

The above three judgements by the Central Information Commission illustrate how the RTI Act supplements the provisions of the POSH Act. Women employees are no longer left uninformed on the redressal mechanism offered to them. The allowance of RTI in sexual harassment proceedings increases the accountability of Internal and Local Complaints Committees. In prohibiting denial of information to the complainant, it mitigates any further distress likely to be caused to the victim. The CIC had kept it in mind to ensure utmost confidentiality, strictly keeping the information of the complaint and its proceedings between the two parties to the complaint only. The interpretations offered by the Commission by way of these three decisions create a sturdy precedent for future similarly circumstanced litigants.