Be mindful of the power dynamics that are mired in sexual harassment at the workplace: SC

The Supreme Court while adjudicating a matter observed that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace(Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 is transformative legislation and it must be interpreted in a manner that serves substantive justice ​​instead of rejecting sexual harassment complaints on “hyper-technical” grounds.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the complainant had accused the respondent of committing sodomy. At the time of the alleged misconduct, the respondent was a Head Constable in the BSF. The complainant was a constable under the same battalion. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place on the night intervening 16 and 17 April 2006. The complainant submitted a written complaint under the BSF Act.

Observations of Commandant

The Commandant found that there was an inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses as regards the date on which the incident had occurred. Hence, the Commandant called for the preparation of an additional RoE. Subsequently, the Summary Security Force Court found the respondent guilty of the charge. He then demoted him to the rank of a Constable as a punishment.

Calcutta High Court’s Ruling

The respondent moved to the High Court at Calcutta. The court set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the original RoE was insufficient to prove the charge and the order of the Commandant for preparing an additional RoE was beyond jurisdiction. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the judgment of the Single Judge Bench on the ground that:

1. The Commandant did not have jurisdiction to direct the preparation of an additional RoE and,
2.  The SSFC or the Appellate Authority – Director General of BSF did not furnish any reasons for holding the respondent guilty.

However, the Apex Court held that there was no error of jurisdiction. The Commandant was correct in seeking clarification of the date of the incident by calling for an additional RoE.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

Further, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna went on to highlight a rising trend of invalidation of proceedings inquiring into sexual misconduct, on hyper-technical interpretations of the applicable service rules.

The court said, “We implore courts to interpret service rules and statutory regulations governing the prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace in a manner that metes out procedural and substantive justice to all the parties”, said the Court while reiterating its earlier stand in (Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India). Courts must uphold the spirit of the right against sexual harassment that is vested in all persons as a part of their right to life and right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Power Dynamics at the Workplace

The court also observed that “It is also important to be mindful of the power dynamics that are mired in sexual harassment at the workplace. There are several considerations and deterrents that a subordinate aggrieved of sexual harassment has to face when they consider reporting sexual misconduct of their superior”.

Deeming such a trivial aspect to be of monumental relevance, while invalidating the entirety of the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and reinstating him to his position renders the complainant‘s remedy at nought. The history of legal proceedings such as these is a major factor that contributes to the deterrence that civil and criminal mechanisms pose to persons aggrieved of sexual harassment”, held the Court.

With these critical observations, the apex court allowed the appeal. Consequently, the SC has set aside the Calcutta High Court’s impugned judgment and order.

Insights for workplace leaders 

There are two major takeaways from this case, one, your company should not approach sexual misconduct with a one-size-fits-all approach. Your policies and redressal mechanism must take into consideration the unique dynamics of corporate hierarchy. Second, do not invalidate proceedings merely on a technical ground. Instead, create a culture where technical support is provided to the aggrieved. A safe space should be provided to employees to voice out their concerns of sexual misconduct at the workplace.

About the author: Vanita is a lawyer and Lead – Research & Communications at Ungender.  She writes extensively on building inclusive workplaces, gender issues, social inequalities, and public policy. 

Ungender Insights is the product of our learning from advisory work at Ungender. In our initiative to build inclusive workplaces for all individuals, we continue to educate and advise leaders on the same. Write to us at contact@ungender.in to know more about our advisory services.