Tag:

Indian Judiciary

By Srishti Sarraf

Introduction

Indian society has been patriarchal from its very inception giving rise to gender inequality as its root product. Among all other forms of gender inequalities, the instance of sexual harassment is the ugliest as they don’t just show the social backwardness and frivolous thinking but also affect sufferers’ physical and mental health; destroy their confidence hampering their psyche and reputation along with leaving a forever horrible mark. Undoubtedly, the hassle of women’s sexual harassment is not of a recent origin and has ever existed in society and with women stepping into formal professional space, the issue taking the shape of workplace sexual harassment entered there as well. The reports suggest that on average nearly 81 per cent of females have experienced some sort of sexual harassment and three-quarters among them were harassed in the capacity of an employee by someone senior to them.

Unveiling The Causes Behind Workplace Sexual Harassment

A large body of research suggests that workplace sexual harassment is a consequence of power differentials. It is not primarily a result of physical access rather a mirror reflecting male power over women. Many analysts argue that it is a tool used as an equaliser against women in power, rather than instigated by sexual desire. It is a way for men to dominate and control women, who are seen as non-conformists and have risen to positions that have been traditionally occupied by men. It is even argued that sexual harassment as an act is deeply embedded within organisational practices and policies and thus needs to be examined within the specific context and women employees with tentative tenure, economic vulnerability, or those who are self-directed are inclined to experience sexual harassment.

Unfortunately, despite earlier notoriously famous “the butt-slapping case” and other unreported incidents, it was only in 1997 when the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the landmark judgment of Vishaka v. the State of Rajasthan considered the matter and recorded the instance as a clear breach of the right to equality and dignity. The Court went on to formulate legally binding guidelines as a helpful redressal mechanism established for safeguarding the said rights, popularly known as “Vishaka Guidelines”. This step was taken taking into account the fact that then-existing laws in India (penal and civil) were not sufficient to bestow special armour to women from sexual harassment in the workplace and that the ratification of a new enactment will require substantial time. These guidelines were in operation for almost thirteen years before being turned into well comprehensive legislation. Hopefully, at present, the country has full-fledged dedicated legislation in this regard, namely Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Crucial Definitions under the Act, 2013

sexual harassment: Sub-clause ii, iii, iv and v of section 2(n) which deals with the expressed or implied unwelcome acts or behaviour demanding or requesting sexual favours, making sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography and any other unwelcome verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature, respectively, confirms that any “unwelcoming behaviour” can be construed as sexual harassment. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Judiciary had affirmed that “any act or gesture that intends for or has the appearance of modesty, whether explicitly or impliedly point toward or has the potential to affront the modesty of a female employee must fall under the broad definition of sexual harassment.” For instance, even “incessantly messaging an employee on her handset with unsuitable kinds of stuff, against her will, is Sexual Harassment inside the connotation of the Act.” Notably, the “intention” of the accused is immaterial for an act to be considered as sexual harassment.

Aggrieved Woman’: The territorial applicability of the Act extends to the whole of India and the personnel applicability of the Act is extended to cover ‘aggrieved woman’ as defined under Section 2 (a) that implies as “a woman, of any age”whether employed or not” is within the purview of the Act. A few days back, in Pawan Kumar Niroula v. Union of India and others, the Court opined that the provisions of the Act will apply to the students of the school as well.

Workplace’: The Act covers both the organized and unorganized sectors and encompasses dwelling houses and various governmental and non-governmental organizations within the ambit of the workplace under sub-clause (o) & (p) of Section 2. In various cases, the Court interpreted that the definition of the workplace should be inclusive and non-exhaustive. Similarly, in Saurabh Kumar Mallick v Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr, the court highlighted the need to consider the development in technology in the sexual harassment arena. Likewise, in Sanjeev Mishra v. Bank of Baroda, the Court observed that “with the global shift to the work from home model owing to the on-going pandemic, more individuals and particularly women are finding themselves vulnerable to online sexual harassment,” thus workplace includes digital platforms as well.

Thus, it may be best to refer to the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) all misconduct with sexual undertones. The ICC may then refer the matter to the regular disciplinary committee if, after analysis, it is of the view that the complaint does not relate to acts of a sexual nature, as suggested by Madras High Court in M Kavya v The Chairman, University Grants Commission (2014).

Other Constructive Judicial Precedents

Fortunately, the timely judicial review of the POSH Act by various High Courts and the Supreme Court has provided some clarity on its various provisions. The judiciary continues to bear the torch for women’s rights by upholding the right to dignity at work and has steadfastly refused to dilute some of the provisions of this law on grounds of hyper-technicality or procedural infirmities. In, Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India, the two-judge bench of Hon’ble Apex Court remarked “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”, 

Recent Initiatives

After more than 8 years of its enforcement, the Indian workspace has hopefully started unabashedly accepting the existing menace of workplace sexual harassment thereby facilitating moves to curb it. The recent years have shown some admiring initiatives in this regard. For instance, in 2017, the Ministry of women & child development has introduced the “SHe-Box“, a virtual complaint portal for all women workers making the mechanism of filing complaints easy and more accessible. In the same vein, by order dated January 7, 2022, Allahabad High directed to install several complaint boxes in the court premises to make the complaint filing process smoother for women employees of the High Court against instances of sexual harassment.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that we have come a long way in acknowledging, handling and curbing the widespread hurdle of workplace sexual harassment and the POSH Act has been instrumental in bringing out radical changes. Further, the role of the Judiciary in expanding the scope, ambit, and mandatory compliance scheme of the Act has been remarkable in particular. Nevertheless, to ensure satisfactory implementation strict compliance with the Act is essential. To conclude let us all “see gender as a spectrum instead of two sets of opposing ideals” as for fighting against such issues the mindset needs to be changed first.

0 comments 25 views
7 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
  • Shivangi Sharma

Madhya Pradesh High Court in July 2020 (In Vikram v. The State of Madhya Pradesh in MCRC 23350/2020) while allowing a bail application in a sexual offence case put a condition on the accused to visit the complainant at her house along with his wife and get Rakhi tied and promising the complainant to protect her to the best of his ability for all times to come. The Supreme Court in an SLP filed against this order in Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh has passed a beautifully worded judgment pointing out the deeply rooted sexism in the judiciary and sincere lack of gender sensitivity amongst the judges.

Indian Judiciary although with accolades for many transformative judgments has often been disappointing when it comes to gender specific cases. A report by SamshBoard, a New-Delhi and Paris-based non-profit, stated that female representation in the Indian judiciary is dismal with women accounting for only 7 percent of the strength of High Court judges, and that’s keeping sexism alive in the institution. The report was released after a few days of passing of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, popularly known as the notorious RBG. RBG was the second ever female justice of the US Supreme Court and when asked “when will there be enough women in the Supreme Court?”, she answered “when there are nine”. But India even today is far away from that dream of “enough” female representation in judiciary with only one sitting female justice against the strength of 34 after the retirement of justice Indu Malhotra last week.

Negative impact of this lack of representation is well reflected in the ignorant conduct of judges. The present Chief Justice of India during a bail hearing in sexual assault case of a minor asked the lawyer of the accused “Will you marry her?” he further added “We are not forcing you to marry. Let us know if you will. Otherwise you will say we are forcing you to marry”. As utterly shocking it seems that a question of marriage is coming up in a case of repeated sexual assault, it is unfortunately quite common in cases of rape especially the ones under the false pretext of marriage. The term “consent” is not very well understood by the judicial system. Consent for any physical activity should be specific, informed, explicit, enthusiastic and freely given without any kind of influence. But sadly, the age-old victim blaming practices are still very much alive in the minds of our judges. Take for example a bail order passed by Karnartaka High Court in June 2020 (Rakesh B. v. State of Karnataka Crl. P. No. 2427/2020) in another sexual assault case. The judge remarked on survivor’s conduct that
“c) nothing is mentioned by the complainant as to why she went to her office at night, that is, at 11 PM; she has also not objected to consuming drinks with the petitioner and allowing him to stay with her till morning; the explanation offered by the complainant that after the perpetration of the act she was tired and fell asleep, is unbecoming of an Indian woman; that is not the way our women react when they are ravished;”

This highly problematic remark by a High Court judge although later expunged after faced with tons of criticism by the public and the bar, opens our eyes to the fact that the stereotype of a chaste “Indian woman” and patriarchal gender roles are still cemented in the mindset of people in authority. Recently sworn in as Uttarakhand Chief Minister Tirath Singh Rawat too in an event remarked that he is shocked to see women in ripped jeans. What message they are sending to society and what values they are giving to their own kids. After facing a lot of backlash on the same, CM’s wife in a classic Phyllis Schalfly manner came in his support saying that his husband’s statement is taken out of context and his intentions were to say that it is women’s responsibility to save our cultural heritage. Well it is a whole another point of discussion about the distorted image of our cultural heritage painted by brahmanical patriarchy but the bottom line is, it is high time that people in judiciary and other authoritative positions be properly sensitized on gender and its intersectionality.

It goes without saying that the transparent gender gap in the judiciary is responsible for furthering patriarchal notions which are reflected very clearly in judicial orders. Since 1950, the Supreme Court has had only eight female judges out of the total number 239 and has never seen a woman Chief Justice of India, as recently highlighted by various national news forums. There had only been two all-women Benches in the Supreme Court since its establishment in the 1950. The presence of diversity is quintessential to legitimacy of the judiciary. An institution that has a duty to safeguard the rights of the people needs to understand their various identities and social issues attached to them. People from marginalised communities, of different gender identities and sexual orientation barely see any representation from their folks and are at the behest of people (read cis-het men) from privileged backgrounds to understand and protect their interests. Ravindra Bhat J. in paragraph 35 of the Aparna Bhat judgment (Supra) refers to Simone Cusack’s paper on ‘Eliminating Judicial Stereotyping’ extracted below:
“Judicial Stereotyping refers to the practice of judges ascribing to an individual specific attributes, characteristics or roles by reason only of her or his membership in a particular social group (e.g. women). It is used, also, to refer to the practice of judges perpetuating harmful stereotypes through their failure to challenge them, for example by lower courts or parties to legal proceedings. Stereotyping excludes any individualized consideration of, or investigation into, a person’s actual circumstances and their needs or abilities.”
It looks like the Supreme Court is finally becoming more self-aware of the judiciary’s gender bias and is taking a step to eliminate the same.

The condition to tie bail to the accused of sexual offence by the complainant breaks the very first rule in the book of protection of survivors, i.e. breaking the contact between the perpetrator and the survivor. The ideal image of a sexual assault survivor is harmful to the actual survivors who do not fit in that image and are further subjected to victim blaming and character assassination. Noting down the “Nature of the Beast” Supreme court ruled that courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion, in words spoken during proceedings, or in the course of a judicial order and passed seven key directions which are needed to be adhered to by courts while passing bail orders in cases of sexual offences. Further, with regard to training and sensitization of judges and lawyers, including public prosecutors, the court mandated that a module on gender sensitization be included, as part of the foundational training of every judge. This module must aim at imparting techniques for judges to be more sensitive in hearing and deciding cases of sexual assault, and eliminating entrenched social bias, especially misogyny. The court also instructed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to consult subject experts and circulate a paper for discussion with law faculties and colleges/universities in regard to courses that should be taught at the undergraduate level, in the LL.B. program and include question pertaining to sexual offences and gender sensitization in All India Bar Exam.

The Indian Judicial System has a long way to go to achieve gender equality but this judgment certainly paves the path in the right direction.

0 comments 27 views
4 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
The Womb - Encouraging, Empowering and Celebrating Women.

The Womb is an e-platform to bring together a community of people who are passionate about women rights and gender justice. It hopes to create space for women issues in the media which are oft neglected and mostly negative. For our boys and girls to grow up in a world where everyone has equal opportunity irrespective of gender, it is important to create this space for women issues and women stories, to offset the patriarchal tilt in our mainstream media and society.

@2025 – The Womb. All Rights Reserved. Designed and Developed by The Womb Team

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?