Why in News?

• The Madras High Court has directed the Union Defence Ministry to ensure that the Indian Air Forces must have an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and impart gender-sensitive awareness training.

Background

• A woman officer had filed a complaint with the local police in Coimbatore after she felt that the Indian Airforce Force (IAF) authorities further victimized her while investigating the accused on her complaint.
• Police said that the woman had approached them as she was not satisfied with the way the action was taken internally by the Air Force.
• The flight lieutenant was arrested following the rape survivor’s complaint to Coimbatore Police.
• The woman had also made a serious allegation that the IAF medical doctors subjected her to a two-finger test to examine rape which has been banned by the Supreme Court in 2013.
• However, IAF chief Air Chief Marshal Vivek Ram Chaudhari denied the allegation.
• The counsel for the Air Force Administrative College submitted that the accused was tried before the Court Martial and was convicted for the offence.

Court’s Observations

• Justice RN Manjula of the Madras High Court observed that “In this era of awareness and sensitivity, it is difficult to comprehend that a victim of a sexual offence in the armed forces was not comfortable enough to take up her grievance and she was looked down on and pressured for having got the courage to report”.
• The court also stated that “Even if the accused is convicted at the end of the trial that cannot be called as a complete justice and such victimization can continue even after the conviction of the accused.”
• The Justice RN Manjula further directed the Centre to ensure the proper existence of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013.

Two Finger Test

• The two-finger test, carried out by a medical practitioner, involves the examination of vagina of a woman to check if she is habitual to sexual intercourse.
• A woman who has been sexually assaulted undergoes this medical examination for ascertaining her health and medical needs, collection of evidence, etc.
• The Supreme Court has declared the two-finger test (also known as the ‘virginity test’ or ‘per vaginum’ test) unconstitutional in Lillu @ Rajesh & Anr. vs State of Haryana (2013). It was stated that the test “violates the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity.”

Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act, 2013

• The landmark case that led to the enactment of this legislature is Vishakha and others v. State of Rajasthan (1997).
• The guidelines passed in this case are as follows:
  • It is the duty of every employer to deliver a sense of security to every women employee.
  • Government should make strict laws and regulations to prohibit sexual harassment.
  • Any act of such nature should result in disciplinary actions and criminal proceedings should also be brought against the wrong doer.
  • The organization should have a well-set-up complaint mechanism for the redressal of the complaints made by the victim and should be subjected to a reasonable time.
  • This complaint mechanism should be in the form of complaint committee which need to be headed by a women member and at least 50% of the committee members should be women so that victims do not feel ashamed while communicating their problems.
  • This complaint committee should also have a third-party involvement in the form of an NGO or other body which is familiar with this issue.
  • There is a need for transparency in the functioning of this committee and for that there is a requirement for the submission of an annual report to the government.
  • Issues relating to sexual harassment should not be a taboo in the workers meeting and should be discussed positively.
  • It is the duty of the organization to aware the female employees about their rights by regularly informing them about the new guidelines issued and legislation passed.
  • The employer or the person in charge is duty biased to take the necessary and reasonable steps to provide support to the victim of sexual harassment takes place due to the act or omission of the third party.
  • These guidelines are not limited only to government employers and should also be followed by employers in the private sectors.
• The case of Medha Kotwal Lele & ors. v. Union of India & Ors (2012) helped in the implementation of the guidelines formulated in Vishakha’s case as mentioned above, by issuing notices to all states and the union territories to impart the necessary steps.
• Sexual Harassment is defined by Section 2(n) of the said act and S.3 (2) mentions some circumstances which lead to sexual harassment.

Section 2(n) - "Sexual Harassment" includes any one or more of the following unwelcome acts or behaviour (whether directly or by implication) namely: -

i. physical contact and advances; or

ii. a demand or request for sexual favours; or

iii. making sexually coloured remarks; or

iv. showing pornography; or

v. any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature;

Section 3 – (2) The following circumstances, among other circumstances, if it occurs or is present in relation to or connected with any act or behaviour of sexual harassment may amount to sexual harassment -

i. implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her employment; or

ii. implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in her employment; or

iii. implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status; or

iv. interference with her work or creating an intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment for her; or

v. humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or safety.

Sections 4 of the said legislation provide for the constitution of Internal Complaints Committee.