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 DY 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 top court noted in its judgement that the woman, a scale-IV bank 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 top 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.
“There can be no manner of doubt that the respondent (woman officer) has been victimized. Her reports of irregularities in the branch met with reprisal. She was transferred out and sent to a branch which was expected to be occupied by a scale-I officer,” the bench said.