Non-hostile working environment basic limb of dignified employment, says SC

Non-hostile working environment is the basic limb of a dignified employment and the law on sexual harassment should not only confine to commission of actual offence but also cover the day-to-day prejudice and discrimination suffered by women, the Supreme Court said on Friday.

The observations were made by a bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari in a judgment by which it also upheld the constitutional validity of a 35-year-old Rule empowering the government authority to compulsorily retire an intelligence officer on account of him or her being exposed or becoming unemployable with the organization.

The verdict decided a batch of petitions filed by one Nisha Priya Bhatia on issues emanating from her compulsory retirement from the RAW under Rule 135 of the Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre and Services) of 1975.

The court took note of the fact that there was delay in setting up of an in-house panel to inquire into the sexual harassment allegations of former officer against her two seniors in the organization and directed the Centre to pay a compensation of Rs 1 lakh to her.

The scheme of the 2013 Act, Vishaka Guidelines and Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) predicates that a non-hostile working environment is the basic limb of a dignified employment.

"The approach of law as regards the cases of sexual harassment at workplace is not confined to cases of actual commission of acts of harassment, but also covers situations wherein the woman employee is subjected to prejudice, hostility, discriminatory attitude and humiliation in day to day functioning at the workplace. Taking any other view would defeat the purpose of the law..., the verdict said.

A priori, when inaction or procrastination (intentionally or otherwise) is meted out in response to the attempt of setting the legal machinery in motion, what is put to peril is not just the individual cries for the assistance of law but also the foundational tenets of a society governed by the rule of law, thereby threatening the larger public interests, it said.

The top court said denial of timely inquiry and by a competent forum, inevitably results in denial of justice and violation of fundamental right.

While awarding the compensation to Bhatia in the instant case, the bench said the factual matrix of the present case is replete with lack of sensitivity on the part of Secretary on the complaint of sexual harassment.

It said that the constitution of the first complaint committee to inquire into Bhatia's complaint was improper an in violation of the Vishaka Guidelines.

Two in-house panels were set up by the RAW to inquire into the sexual harassment allegations levelled by Bhatia against her two seniors.

Clean chit were given to the officers as the Bhatia did not appear before the panels raising suspicion over their impartiality.

The lady officer was compulsorily retired from the services on December 12, 2009.

Taking overall view of the circumstances, we consider this to be a fit case to award compensation to the petitioner for the stated violation of her right to life and dignity, quantified at Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only).

Had it been a case of allegations in the stated complaint of the petitioner been substantiated in the duly conducted inquiry (which the petitioner had failed to do), it would have been still worst and accentuated violation of her fundamental rights warranting suitable (higher) compensation amount, the apex court said.