Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. Dilip Paul, held that the allegations of sexual harassment should be considered within the broader context of the case and should not be judged merely on the basis of a procedural violation.

What was the Background of Union of India & Ors. v. Dilip Paul Case?

• The respondent herein was serving as the Local Head of Office of the Service Selection Board in the State of Assam.
• In the very same office, a lady employee was serving as the Field Assistant who filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the respondent.
• The first complaint was filed on 30^th August 2011 which was initially submitted to the Inspector General (IG) and subsequently forwarded to several authorities, including the Chairperson of the National Women Rights Commission, New Delhi.
• On the 18^th September 2012, the complainant submitted a second complaint containing additional allegations against the respondent through fax.
• Two initial inquiries, a fact-finding inquiry and a Frontier Complaints Committee inquiry, failed to substantiate the allegations.
• Thereafter the Central Complaints Committee undertook the inquiry.
• The Central Complaints Committee found the respondent guilty of sexual harassment.
• For the purpose of canceling the Central Complaints Committee's inquiry, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
• As the disciplinary proceedings were still pending, CAT refrained from expressing opinions regarding the Central Complaints Committee’s Inquiry.
• Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Guwahati High Court.
• The High Court (HC) stated that the jurisdiction of the Central Complaints Committee was limited to the first complaint filed by the complainant, and it should not have considered the allegations made in the second complaint.
• Aggrieved by this, an appeal was filed before the SC.
• The judgment of the HC was set aside by the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra held that allegations of sexual harassment should be considered within the broader context of the case and should not be judged merely on the basis of a procedural violation.
• The Court underlined the importance of not being swayed by insignificant discrepancies or hyper-technicalities when reviewing such cases. It stressed that allegations of this nature should be considered within the broader context of the entire case. The Court also cautioned against showing undue sympathy or leniency towards the individual accused of misconduct.
• The Court also highlighted the limited jurisdiction of the HC in such matters. It stated that the HC should not function as an appellate authority or replace its own findings with those of the disciplinary authority.
• The Court further opined that in case of a mere violation of a procedural rule, no prejudice could be claimed to have been caused to the respondent even if it was assumed that he was not asked to plead guilty to the second complaint. The SC held that the HC had overlooked the principles established by the Court and had unreasonably set aside the disciplinary authority's punishment order.

What is Sexual Harassment?

• Sexual harassment is a pervasive and deeply rooted issue that has plagued the societies worldwide.
• Sexual harassment is in grave violation of the fundamental rights of a woman. It means any unwanted conduct of sexual nature
• In India, it has been a matter of serious concern, and the development of laws to combat sexual harassment is a testament to the nation's commitment towards addressing this problem.
• Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) deals with Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. It states that -

(1) A man committing any of the following acts-

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favors;

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually colored remarks,

shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

• The turning point against the growing social menace of sexual harassment of women at workplace could be traced back to the pathbreaking decision of the SC in the case of Vishaka and Ors v. State of Rajasthan (1997).
  • In this case, the SC recognized sexual harassment at the workplace as a violation of a woman's fundamental right to equality and dignity.