TEN THINGS TO KNOW ABOUT LAW RELATING TO
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AT WORKPLACE
The
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2012 is an act "to provide protection against sexual harassment of
women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual
harassment.”
The brutal gang rape of a social worker in Rajasthan in 1997 brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of India, the absence of domestic law occupying the field, to formulate effective measures to check the evil of sexual harassment of working women at all work places.
This resulted in India finally enacting its law on prevention of sexual harassment against female employees at the workplace.
With reference to the Vishaka Guidelines the law hopes to redress as well as prevent cases of sexual harassment in all workplaces across India.
Here are the 10 key features of VISHAKA guidelines:
The brutal gang rape of a social worker in Rajasthan in 1997 brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of India, the absence of domestic law occupying the field, to formulate effective measures to check the evil of sexual harassment of working women at all work places.
This resulted in India finally enacting its law on prevention of sexual harassment against female employees at the workplace.
With reference to the Vishaka Guidelines the law hopes to redress as well as prevent cases of sexual harassment in all workplaces across India.
Here are the 10 key features of VISHAKA guidelines:
1. The law applies to women harassed in
the workplace including women working as domestic workers, daily wagers,
temporary or permanent, full-time or part-time, as well as volunteers. The
women may or may not be employed and can be of any age. The law is only
applicable to women and women only.
2. Sexual harassment includes any one or
more of the following unwelcome acts or behavior:
Physical contact or advances A demand or request for sexual favours Making sexually coloured remarks Showing pornography Any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature If the following circumstances exist in relation to any behavior, that is, if any act is done under the following circumstances that would also count as sexual harassment:
Implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in employment Implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in employment Implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status Interferes with work or creates an intimidating/hostile/offensive work environment Humiliating treatment likely to affect her health and safety.
3. The act of harassment can occur in
the workplace and also if a woman is harassed while visiting a place arising
out of or during the course of employment including transportation provided by
the office, a complaint can be filed under this Act.
4. The Act requires all workplaces to
set up Internal Complaints Committees to address the issue of sexual
harassment. There will also be a Local Complaints Committee for each District
where complaints can be filed.
5.
An aggrieved woman can file a complaint within 3 months of the incident (or
later if allowed by the committee).
6. The Act provides the option of a
settlement between the aggrieved woman and the responded through conciliation
but only on the request of the woman. However, money compensation cannot be a
basis for the settlement.
7.
The inquiry has to be completed within 90 days.
8. In case of malicious complaints or
false evidence, the Committee may take action against the woman/person.
However, simply not being able to prove an allegation will not mean that it is
a false/malicious complaint.
9. The identity of the aggrieved woman,
respondent, witnesses as well as other details of the complaint cannot be
published or disclosed to the public/media.
10. The Act also hopes to prevent such
incidents by placing a duty on employers to hold regular workshops/awareness
programmes as well as, display the consequences of harassment in the workplace.
Every employer has a duty to provide a safe working environment to all
employees.
Sexual harassment
of women at workplace bill 2012 passed by Lok Sabha
The Bill on the Sexual Harassment at the Workplace [The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Bill, 2012] got passed by the Lok Sabha on 3rd
September, as news sources put it, ‘amidst the protests over
Coalgate’. India did not have any legislation to deal
with sexual harassment at the workplace and in that sense, the bill is a
welcome addition. So far the ‘law’ for the purpose of dealing with ‘sexual
harassment at the workplace’ emanated from the operative Guidelines on Sexual
Harassment at the Workplace, issued by the Supreme Court of India in 1997, in the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan. Under Article 19 (1) g of the Indian
Constitution, all citizens have been granted the right to practice any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Vishaka established that a logical consequence
of incidents, which result in violation of the fundamental rights of ‘Gender
Equality’ and ‘Right to Life and Liberty’, is that it causes a violation of the
victim’s fundamental right under Article 19 (1) g. The Vishakha guidelines
recognized that sexual harassment is not just a personal injury to the affected
woman but violates a woman’s right to equality at the workplace. The guidelines
shifted the onus for ensuring employees’ safety and gender equality to the
employer and institutions, whether it is in the government or the private
sector and the employer was made responsible for implementing both preventive
and remedial measures to make the workplace safe for women.
The campaign around a law for sexual harassment at the
workplace was to ensure an access to a safe workplace by the woman following
guidelines laid down by the Apex court in Vishakha. In 2010, more than 10 years
after Vishakha, the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 7, 2010.
The 2010 version of the bill defined sexual harassment at the work place and
created a mechanism for redressal of complaints through ‘internal complaints
committee’ in the workplace or ‘local complaints committee’ at the district and
block level. However, there was a hiccup, in the nature of action being sought
to be taken against false or malicious charges. The Parliamentary Standing Committee
that submitted its report in June 2011, had recommended removal of ‘malicious’
and retention of ‘false’. The present version of the bill, to the dismay of
activist and lawyers, retains the contentious S 14 calling for action against
the complainant in case the “internal committee or the local committee as the
case may be, arrives at a conclusion that the allegation against
the respondent is malicious or
the aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has made
the compliant knowing it to be false…” The danger in this is that the entire
purpose of Vishakha and this law is defeated.Complaint ‘not proved’ does not
mean that the complaint is false. There are remedies under the ordinary law
(e.g. defamation) to resort to if the complaint is found to be ‘false’. Second,
how is malice to be determined? Such provision will have a chilling effect and a
woman will hardly if ever make a complaint when sexually harassed. A Bill
seeking to remedy complaints of the most under reported crime needs to do away with such provision.
Are members of complaints committee competent to measure if complaints are made
‘maliciously’? The answer is a clear ‘No’.
The bill in S 13 visualises a two stage
enquiry process. Even after the inquiry committee has found that sexual
harassment has taken place,it is required to send the report to the
disciplinary committee for action under the Service Rules. This means that the
employer will start another enquiry on the same complaint again in accordance
with law, Public servants will then have to face an enquiry under Central
discipline rules. The woman will have to lead evidence again and subject
herself to cross examination again as per the Central Civil Service Rules and
there will be a fresh report and the report will then have to go to the disciplinary
authority for deciding the punishment. The application of the service rules
that require cross examination of witness etc do not provide the adequate
safeguards to the complainant as is required in a case of sexual harassment at
workplace. There is no justification why a complainant should depose
twice. Witnesses may or may not be willing to depose twice. Private sector
employers also have rules which require enquiries to be held according to the
rules and it is not clear if they too will conduct a second enquiry. The value
of the Internal complaints committee is being completely undermined by Sec 13
(3)(i).
In contrast to
this , the Supreme Court of India in Medha
Kotwal has clarified that the report of the
complaints committee is final and that the disciplinary authority can only deal
with the punishment but not start a second stage enquiry.
“Complaint committee as
envisaged by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Vishaka’s case, (1997) 6 SCC
253, will be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the purpose of central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 (Hereinafter called CCS Rules) and the report of
the complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under the CCS
rules. Thereafter the disciplinary authority will act on the report in accordance with
the rules.”
This means that enquiry is not required
to be conducted again but that the disciplinary authority will only decide the
punishment after giving to the employee an opportunity to make a representation
against the report and on punishment. This section must be appropriately
modified.
The Bill does not
cover members of the armed forces. Women in the the armed forces must be
covered as there is a high rate of sexual harassment in the armed forces ,
judging from complaints that have come to court in the last decade. It must
also be remembered that the Armed forces are in any event heavily male
dominated and the chain of command is strong and entrenched.
Enquiries are held behind closed doors putting women in the Armed forces at a disadvantage
to begin with. There is no need to exclude such women from the purview of the
act as no strategic or other interests are affected by protecting them against
sexual harassment at the workplace.
That complaints
must be made within 3 months is also unwarranted. Women who survive sexual
harassment and other forms of gendered violence may not and cannot approach a
grievance redressal mechanism in the immediate aftermath.
Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment