The question of whether it is mandatory to provide an inquiry report under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to the complainant has sparked legal discourse. A recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Ms. X vs. Union of India & Ors.1 has provided much-needed clarity on this issue.
Introduction:
In a significant ruling underscoring the importance of transparency and procedural compliance under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 also known as the POSH Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India imposed a penalty of INR 25,000 on the Border Security Force (BSF) on December 04, 2024.
The penalty was levied for failing to provide the inquiry report to the complainant, who had alleged to be subjected to sexual harassment, thereby violating the mandatory provision of Section 13(1) of the POSH Act.
Facts of the Case:
The case originated from a complaint lodged by a woman constable of the Border Security Force (BSF), alleging sexual harassment by one of the officers.
According to the petitioner, since the BSF had not taken any action of the complaint made by the petitioner, she was constrained to file a writ petition before the Apex Court.
Initially on the complaint made by the petitioner/complainant, an inquiry was constituted under the POSH Act. As reported, nothing came out on the complaint and the officer was discharged of all the charges. Subsequently, the matter came to the Inspector General for final approval of the order and a General Security Force was constituted and fresh inquiry was conducted, but this time under the Border Security Force Act, 1968, which held a detailed inquiry and proceedings were held in the matter and finally a punishment was awarded, such as:
- 89 days of rigororus imprisonment in custody;
- Forfeiture of 5 years of service for the purpose of promotion and
- Forfeiture of 5 years of past service for the purpose of pension
Argument of the Complainant/Petitioner:
However, not being satisfied with the punishment imposed on the accused officer, the complainant argued on the following points, namely:
- That the punishment was liable to be imposed under the POSH Act and
- Copy of the inquiry report under the BSF Act was not supplied to the petitioner/complainant, thereby violating her legal rights as provided under Section 13(1) of the POSH Act.
Legal Framework: Section 13(1) of the POSH Act
Section 13 (1) of the POSH Act states:
"On completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within a period of ten days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties."
Submissions of the Border Security Force (BSF):
However, the BSF contended that the inquiry report was withheld because the complainant was not an accused party and moreover, no substantial evidence of sexual harassment had been established against the accused officer under the POSH Act. They argued that since no formal charges were proven, the report held no material significance for the complainant.
Findings of the Court
However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument unequivocally.
A bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that the complainant, as the victim, indisputably qualified as a "concerned party" under Section 13(1) of the POSH Act.
The court emphasized that withholding the report violated the complainant's rights and compromised the principles of natural justice enshrined in the POSH Act.
Observing that the BSF's actions undermined the legislative intent to empower and protect victim of workplace sexual harassment, the court declared:
"On the facts of this case where the Inquiry Report was not been given to the petitioner, there has clearly been a violation of Section 13 of the Act," the court declared.
As a consequence of this violation, the Supreme Court directed the BSF to pay INR 25000 as compensation to the petitioner/complainant vide order dated December 04, 2024.2
Notably, the court clarified that no further action was required regarding the punishment imposed on the accused officer under the BSF Act, as it was deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Conclusion:
This ruling clarifies that providing the POSH inquiry report to the complainant is not just a mere procedural formality but a critical element of ensuring fairness and justice in cases pertaining to sexual harassment at workplaces.
By directing the BSF to compensate the complainant, the court has sent a strong message about the consequences of non-compliance with the statutory obligations.
Key Takeaways:
- Mandatory Disclosure: Section 13(1) of the POSH Act mandates that inquiry report must be shared with all the concerned parties, including the complainant. Failing to do so may result in penal consequences
- Right of the victim: The complainant, as a victim of sexual harassment, has a statutory right to access the findings of the inquiry.
- Transparency and Fairness: Procedural lapses, such as withholding the report, undermine the integrity of the POSH framework and may attract penalties.
Footnotes
1. Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(S). 284/2020- Supreme Court of India
2. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/order-204392020-04-12-2024-575786.pdf
For further information please contact at S.S Rana & Co. email: info@ssrana.in or call at (+91- 11 4012 3000). Our website can be accessed at www.ssrana.in
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
