Even high government position no protection to woman against workplace sexual harassment: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently refused to interfere with a Magistrate court order to take cognisnace of a sexual harassment case filed by a lady government officer and member of the Kashmir Administrative Service alleging harassment at workplace.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) who had rejected two closure reports filed by the Delhi Police in the matter and ordered that cognisance be taken.

The High Court lauded the CMM for standing with the complainant despite the accused using the "might of the State" to deflate the complainant.

"This is one case where against all odds, the complainant has found courage to not only to report the harassment to which she was subjected by her superior, but has stood all adversity and has fought her battle bravely till the court to get justice for herself. The might of the State and attempt to deflate her strength and courage, can also be observed from the fact that the State filed the closure report in the FIR, not once but twice. Unfortunately, the Court judiciously has stood with the law, which incidentally in the present case, sides the complainant."

Pertinently, the Court in its order elaborated on the struggles faced by women at workplace, noting that even high ranking government officers are not safe and even education and high government position do not guarantee safety for women at workplace.

"Education or high government position, is no protection to a woman from being subjected to sexual harassment. Respondent no.2 (complainant), despite being a qualified lady who was a member of Kashmir Administrative Services, was also not spared of the harassment at her work place. This petition is another glaring example of the struggle of a woman wronged in her place of work, to get justice," the Court said in its judgment.

The judge emphasised that a safe workplace for women ensuring respect, dignity and decency is essential to achieving gender equality. However, women still place challenges at workplace which results in under reporting of sexual offences.

"While now, though grudgingly, woman's right to equal opportunity of work, has found recognition but challenges being faced at workplace are insurmountable and still resisted by “masculine strategists” who have specious reasons to justify their acts and attitudes. The underlying challenge is the low reporting largely, due to societal pressures, fear of retaliation and reprisals from perpetrator," the Court said.

It also lamented that the mindset of men at workplace continues to remain unchanged.

"This case is a reflection of society, where despite stringent legislation and repeated lamentation about gender neutrality and equality to provide safe work environment; unfortunately the psychology and mindset of the men in work place where sexual harassment continues to haunt the women at work place, especially when it involves “power dynamics”, has remained unchanged.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by the accused against the CMM's order to reject the closure reports filed by the Delhi Police and to take coginsance of the offence of sexual harassment registered against him.

The complainant, a qualified lady who was a member of Kashmir Administrative Services, lodged a complaint with the Department of Hospitality and Protocol of Jammu and Kashmir Government alleging offences under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The inquiry by the inquiry committee/ internal complaints committee (ICC) under the PoSH Act found that the allegations against the accused were not proved.

A first information report (FIR) was also registered but the Delhi Police filed a closure report stating that the complaint was motivated and unsupported by evidence leading to supplementary closure report.

However, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the proceedings of the ICC could not be equated with a criminal trial and found the investigation officer’s conclusions unsustainable.

Consequently, the man was summoned to face trial under Sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

The man challenged the summoning order. However, the trial court (CMM) and revisional court (ASJ) rejected the closure reports, noting sufficient material to summon the petitioner, and held that departmental/ICC proceedings cannot be substitute for a criminal trial.

Challenging the same, the accused moved the High Court.

He contended that the ICC set up by the Jammu and Kashmir government under the PoSH Act had issued a statutory report exonerating him and the same could not be disregarded by the courts.

His counsel further argued that the complainant maintained a cordial relationship with the man, often praising him as an efficient officer and that her witnesses failed to substantiate the sexual harassment allegations.

The Court held that despite the State having filed closure reports twice, the CMM was fully empowered to assess the investigation and evidence to independently take cognisance.

With respect to witness statements, the Court held that the Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly stated that the sole testimony of complainant/prosecutrix is sufficient to bring home a conviction, if it is found to be of sterling quality.

"Here is a case where complainant has made specific allegations which cannot be trashed or claimed to be motivated without being put to the test of trustworthiness by way of trial," the Court opined.

Further, the Court also said that it was not a case wherein the statement of the complainant is not corroborated by independent witnesses.

"The contention that various witnesses were recorded by the Department, but they all supported the petitioner is of little significance, because many may have chosen not to depose against the petitioner, but the statement of the complainant and four (other) witnesses, cannot be disregarded and are sufficient for summoning of the petitioner," the Court held.

Thus, the Court dismissed the plea and observed that there was sufficient material by way of statement of the complainant and the witnesses to prima facie disclose an offence under Sections 354A and 509 IPC.

Advocate Mayank Tripathi appeared for the petitioner- accused.

Advocates Danish Aftab Chowdhury and Suhail Malik appeared for the complainant.

[Read Judgment]