Sexual harassment at workplace is affront to rights of woman, says Supreme Court

New Delhi: Sexual harassment at the workplace is an "affront" to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality, her right to live with dignity and to practice any profession or carry out any occupation, the Supreme Court has said.

The apex court observed this while upholding the verdict of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had quashed an order of transfer of a woman bank employee who had levelled allegations of sexual harassment against her senior officer.

A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was enacted to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at the workplace as well as for prevention and redressal of such complaints.

"Sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 and her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as her right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business," the bench said in its judgement delivered on February 25. The bench said the material placed before it indicated that the woman officer, during her posting at Indore branch of the bank, had written repeated communications to authorities drawing their attention to serious irregularities in maintenance of accounts of liquor contractors and had levelled specific allegations of corruption. "There can be no manner of doubt that the respondent (woman officer) has been victimized. Her reports of irregularities in the branch met with a reprisal. She was transferred out and sent to a branch which was expected to be occupied by a scale-I officer," the bench said.

"This is symptomatic of a carrot and stick policy adopted to suborn the dignity of a woman who is aggrieved by unfair treatment at her workplace. The law cannot countenance this. The order of transfer was an act of unfair treatment and is vitiated by malafides," it said.

The top court noted in its judgement that the woman officer had not participated in the proceedings before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the bank, which dealt with her allegations of sexual harassment, and there was a fundamental defect in the constitution of the ICC.

The counsel appearing for the bank had argued before the apex court that the ICC, upon enquiring into the complaint of sexual harassment, had found that there was no substance in those allegations.

Referring to provisions of the Act, the bench noted that one member of the ICC has to be drawn from amongst a non-governmental organization or association committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with issues relating to sexual harassment.

The apex court said there was justification on the part of the bank not to accede to the woman officer's request for replacing one of the members of the ICC with a truly independent third party having regard to the provisions of the Act.