One of the very few times that the Government has a direct say regarding issues relating to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘Act‘) is regarding the appointment of the District Officer. While appointing the District Officer is not predicated on him/her possessing certain attributes or qualifications, the emphasis is more on how the person is found, how he/she is appointed and what duties are to be carried out.

Knowing how to find the District Officer under the Act is of major concern for the human resources and legal departments of Companies, as they have the responsibility for filing their annual compliance reports. To do so, it is vital for them to know how to find their District Officer.

The appropriate Government notifies one of the following persons as the District Officers who are empowered to exercise powers and discharge the functions as are laid down in the Act. Any of the people holding one of the positions below could be notified as the District Officer

The post of the District Officer is vital to the proper implementation of the Act. At the outset, the District Officer is tasked with the constitution of a Local Complaints Committee. For organisations which have more than ten employees, the creation of an ICC is mandatory. Where the workplace has fewer than ten members, the aggrieved parties can only approach the LCC, which is to be constituted by the District Officer.

The District Officer has two important duties. He/she shall monitor the timely submission of reports furnished by the Local Committee. These reports are of such importance as they contain data regarding the reality of the number of complaints that have been filed and disposed of. The District Officer is also responsible to take the steps necessary to engage non-governmental organisation for creating awareness regarding sexual harassment and the rights of women. One of the biggest issues is regarding the awareness (or the lack thereof) regarding the law. The mere existence of the law does not have much bearing until it is followed and those whom it seeks to protect are aware of it.

Needless to say, the post of the District Officer is one of extreme importance and is vital to the effective implementation of the Act. However, the reality is that the District Officers are either not notified, or even if they are, no one knows who they are. The same holds true regarding the creation of an LCC. These issues can all be traced down to the appointment of a District Officer.

According to an article by FirstPost, which was published in 2016, the Delhi Government had proposed the setting up of a Local Complaints Committee, and that the District Magistrates or Additional District Magistrates will be notified as District Officers. This brings to light the current issues that exist with the implementation of the Act. Firstly, the words “proposed the setting up” and “will be notified” show that this is the first step that has been taken up regarding compliance with the provisions of the Act. Since 2013, there have been 101 cases of sexual harassment filed solely in educational institutions. The lack of District Officers and LCCs, or even if they exist, lack of awareness regarding them, is clearly an extremely serious issue.

The appropriate government body has the duty to appoint the District Officer. Where they fail to do so, the implementation of the Act reaches a standstill. As there is no District Officer, the ICCs would not know whom they are to file their compliance reports with. In cases where the ICC has not been formed due to the organisation having fewer than ten members, the aggrieved individual would not have an ICC at the workplace. As a result of this, the only redressal body that she could approach is the LCC. However, as the District Officer has the responsibility to constitute the LCC, his/her absence would leave the victim with nowhere to go with her complaint.

The LCCs and District Officers are seldom being appointed in a majority of districts around the country. Of the 36 states and union territories in the country, only 17 were able to provide the details regarding such appointments in their region.[2] Even so, when they are appointed, the victims are generally unaware of the mechanism that exists for the disposal of their complaints in the workplace. This is where the role of the District Officer comes into play once again, as he also has the obligation to engage with NGOs to create awareness regarding the provisions of the Act, as well as the rights that a woman would have under it. The key issue, currently, is that despite the implementation of the Act, the awareness regarding the same is not at an acceptable level. This is a task that is on the shoulders of the District Officers. The failure to appoint District Officers is thus, also detrimental to the level of awareness that exists regarding the Act.

District Officers receive the annual reports that are prepared by the Internal Committee and the Local Committee in the district. This makes them the link to the information regarding the ground reality that is to be relayed on to the government. However, where the DOs are not appointed, there is a blockage and the flow of information comes to a standstill. Thus, understanding the true impact of the law is not possible, as there are crucial elements of data that would be missing.

The importance of the District Officer is thus much more than simply the duties that he/she is obligated to perform. The failure to appoint the District Officer directly affects the proper implementation of the Act. The fact that nearly four years have passed since the passing of the Act, goes further to highlight the not-so-impressive figures relating to the appointment of the District Officers. While the appointment is to be done by the appropriate government, the same is not always done. The issue in these cases is about Finding the person, rather than Finding the person.

[2]Data collected from the responses received for RTIs filed in each of the States and Union Territories by Ungender Team