High Court imposed hefty cost of Rs. 50,000 on woman for false complaint of sexual harassment

The Delhi High Court, in Anita Suresh v. Union of India & Ors. recently imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 on a woman who had filed a complaint of workplace sexual harassment but was unable to prove any evidence or witnesses to substantiate her case. Such a hefty amount of fine clearly indicates that the case had been filed to ruin the reputation of the accused and the complainant had to pay dearly for the mistake. 

Facts of the Case 

The petitioner, Anita Suresh, was working as an Assistant Director with ESI Corporation in Manesar, Gurgaon in July 2011. On 08th July 2011, the petitioner made a written complaint to the Director-General of ESI Corporation alleging workplace sexual harassment by the accused, Mr. Verma. According to the petitioner, Mr. Verma misbehaved and made attempts of sexual advances. An Internal Complaints Committee was constituted to examine the complaint of the petitioner. Mr. Verma appeared before the Committee and denied all the allegations made by Ms. Anita. According to him, Ms. Anita made the complaint because of the grudge against him due to certain official work disposed of by him in her absence. The Committee examined Ms. Anita, Mr. Verma, and eight witnesses in order to determine the guilt. 

The Committee submitted its report, in which it observed that the exact content of communication of the incident pertaining to sexual advances and workplace sexual harassment could not be established. The Committee gave the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Verma and recommended relocating both Ms. Anita and Mr. Verma from their present posting. 

 Decision of the Case 

The case was decided against Ms. Anita, as it was found that none of the witnesses corroborated her testimony from the day when the alleged workplace sexual harassment was done. Hence, she was fined Rs. 50,000 for filing the frivolous complaint. 

 Rationale of the Case 

As per the complaint dated 08th July 2011 of the petitioner, Mr. Verma made comments indicating sexual advances against the petitioner, who was sitting with her colleagues on the first floor of the building on 7th July 2011. The second incident mentioned in the complaint is that Mr. Verma told Ms. Anita to come alone in the male toilet to check the shortcomings in the presence of the staff and other members.

 The Committee examined the petitioner, Ms. Anita, who could not recollect the names of any of the persons present at the time of the aforesaid incidents. The petitioner was shown the relevant papers relating to the staff members present on that day but still, she could not recollect the names. The petitioner stated that she confided the incidents to Rashmi Kapoor (O.S.) on the same day after the incident. The Committee examined Rashmi Kapoor who stated that she was not present at the time of incident. However, she stated that the petitioner told her that the attitude of Mr. Verma towards Ms. Anita was not good. She further stated that the petitioner told her that Mr. Verma made two inappropriate comments against her.

However, these two comments were not stated by the petitioner in her statement to the Committee. None of the other witnesses had anything to say regarding the relationship between Ms. Anita and Mr. Verma.  

When the Committee examined Mr. Verma, he stated that he brought the absence of soap in the male toilet to the notice of the petitioner. He further stated that his remarks were misinterpreted and taken totally out of context. He also said that Ms. Anita made a complaint against him due to a grudge which was the result of certain official work disposed of by him in her absence. 

Failing to prove anything that was even remotely connected with her case made the case look like a frivolous one. It became an attempt to shadow and taint the record of the accused. 

The employee record of Ms. Anita also was brought forward, which clearly indicated that she was not an employee who regularly followed the rules of conduct, and the complaint hence reeked of ‘ulterior motive’. 

The POSH Act, 2013 was enacted with the purpose of helping the victims of sexual harassment seek speedy justice. But, it is deplorable to see the blatant misuse of the law in order to satisfy some personal vendetta and needs strict measures, such as one imposed by the Honourable High Court in this case. Frivolous cases waste the time of the Court and increase the burden of pendency as well. Considerable fines and restrictions/prohibitions need to be imposed for filing false cases so that there is no loss of reputation of the person being accused of such heinous crime and no loss of court time as well. 

To seek advisory on how to file a sexual harassment complaint or to know more about sexual harassment laws at the workplace visit us at www.ungender.in or email us at contact@ungender.in.