High Court Orders Organizations to Declare Zero Tolerance for Gender Insensitivity

By: WE Team | Saturday, 19 December 2020

Every institution and organization now should focus on bringing zero tolerance for gender insensitivity and the law on sexual harassment at a workplace must be compiled within letter and spirit as women are valuable human resource and they are entitled to a congenial and dignified environment to attain their potential.

"Every institution and organization must declare zero tolerance for Gender insensitivity. Now that there is a statute to protect women from sexual harassment at the workplace the law must comply in letter and spirit."

Sexual harassment is a serious issue that has to be addressed at all workplaces. Women are valuable human resources. Their contribution in all spheres of life can never be belittled, whether at the home and hearth or away from it, in more impersonal office spaces. In either sphere, they are entitled to a congenial and dignified environment to live their life fully and attain their full potentiality," a bench of Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon observed. 

The observations came while allowing the appeal of a woman against a single judge order imposing Rs 50,000 cost on her and directing initiation of appropriate action against her for filing a false sexual harassment complaint against a senior colleague. 

The single judge was of the view that the complaint was false as she was unable to produce any witnesses in support of her complaint and did not even disclose to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) the inappropriate comments made by the alleged harasser. 

While setting aside the single judge's order, the bench said the statements made before the complaints committee and placed on the electronic file "clearly establish that the respondent (man) had been misbehaving with the appellant (complainant) by making statements with sexual overtones".

The bench also laid down some guidelines to be followed by an ICC at the time of dealing with sexual harassment complaints, saying there appeared to be a complete lack of information with women about the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 

"Secondly, it cannot be overlooked that the ICC is intended as a platform to provide an environment of confidence to the complainant. It is not to doubt the veracity of the complaint or view the complainant with suspicion. It is to believe her and not compel her to name witnesses to seek corroboration, as has happened in the instant case," the bench said. 

 Nevertheless, the high standard of proof required in criminal trials is not called for during an inquiry by the ICC under the Act. Therefore, there can be no insistence on the production of witnesses by the complainant to corroborate her statement," the bench said.