Facts in Brief

The immediate cause for the filing of this writ petition was an incident of the alleged brutal gang rape of a social worker in a village in Rajasthan. The petition was brought as a class action by certain social activists and NGOs, with the aim of focusing attention on this societal aberration, and assisting in finding suitable methods for the realisation of the true concept of “gender equality,” and to prevent sexual harassment of working women in all workplaces through the judicial process.

Judgment

The Court, while admitting the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, held that such incidents resulted in the violation of the fundamental rights of “Gender Equality” and the “Right to Life and Liberty.” The Court declared them to be a clear violation of the rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and 21 (Right to life and liberty) of the Constitution, and stated:

“One of the logical consequences of such an incident is also the violation of the victim’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) ‘to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business.'”

It further observed that the fundamental right to carry on any occupation, trade or profession depended on the availability of a “safe” working environment. Right to life means life with dignity.

Taking note of the various international conventions to this effect, the Court went on to lay down guidelines to be observed in both private and public employment, so as to ensure that incidents of sexual harassment at the workplace were not repeated.

The Court defined “sexual harassment” as including:

“Such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as:

• physical contact and advances;
• a demand or request for sexual favours;
• sexually coloured remarks;
• showing pornography;
• any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.”

The Court held that where any of these acts were committed in circumstances whereunder the victim of such conduct had a reasonable apprehension that, in relation to the victim’s employment or work — whether she was drawing salary or honorarium, or working voluntarily, whether in Government, public or private enterprise — such conduct would be considered as humiliating and constituting health and safety problems.

Such treatment was also discriminatory, as the woman had reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment or work, including recruitment or promotion, or when it created a hostile work environment, and adverse consequences might be visited on her if she did not give consent to the conduct in question, or raised any objection thereto.

The Court also gave other directions to ensure that no sexual harassment took place at the workplace, and the responsibility for ensuring the same was placed on the employer. It was further directed that the complaint of the sexually harassed worker was to be addressed at the workplace; therefore, Complaint Committees were to be formulated. The Court also ordered employers to create awareness about the right of being protected from sexual harassment, and for that, it ordered that these guidelines, and any law in this regard, be notified.

For the Common Man

This case lays down the framework and guidelines for the protection of working women from sexual harassment at the workplace. It thus fills the gap on the much-needed point of sexual harassment at the workplace. Another aspect to be noted here is that these guidelines are equally applicable to private employers as they are to Government employers, thereby ensuring that the protection extends everywhere, and the life, dignity and profession of a working woman are adequately protected.