Disciplinary and Transparency Forum – India Diciplinary & Transparancy Forum
More: DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE Orders/ Circulars * Sexual Harassment – Govt. Orders/Circulars
- Bombay High Court: Guidelines to Protect Identities of Parties Involved
– Bombay HC Judgement dated 24.09.2021 – P Vs. A & Ors. - Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ for Improper Handling of Complaint
Hon’ble SC has, inter alia, held –
– The impugned order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 135 against the appellant/petitioner is valid and legal and the decision of the High Court in this regard stands confirmed subject, however, to modification thereof to the extent indicated in the judgment.
– The respondent(s) (Union of India) was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ to the appellant/petitioner for violation of her fundamental rights to life and dignity as a result of the improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment. – SC Judgment dated 24.04.2020 – Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India & Anr. - Delhi High Court Judgment dated 25.11.2019 – Ajay Tiwari Vs. University of Delhi and Ors. – Delhi HC: “Consent, given under coercion, or without volition, is no consent at all.” [Sexual Harassment]
- SC Judgment dated 21.08.2019 – Dr. P.S. Malik Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. – SC: “We, thus, are of the view that no prejudice can be held to be caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. The copy of memo of charge dated 23.02.2017 has been brought on the record, which also clearly indicates that the charge memo does not refer to Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of Report dated 05.11.2016. xxx
26. Before we close, we once more make it clear that with regard to charge memo dated 23.02.2017, inquiry conducted by Internal Complaints Committee culminating into Report dated 09.03.2018, it is open for the petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before the appropriate authority.” [Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC] - Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 – Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. – Delhi High Court: “15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
16. … … Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.” - SC Judgment dated 18.12.2014 – Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and others – “The Chief Justice of the High Court, having assumed a firm position, in respect of certain facts contained in the complaint filed by the petitioner, ought not to be associated with the “inhouse procedure” in the present case. …”
I. Supreme Court Judgements
II. High Court Judgements
I. Supreme Court Judgements
Compensation to Aggrieved/Complainant * Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC * Uncategorised * Live-in Relationship
— Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ for Improper Handling of Complaint
Hon’ble SC has, inter alia, held –
– The impugned order of compulsory retirement passed under Rule 135 against the appellant/petitioner is valid and legal and the decision of the High Court in this regard stands confirmed subject, however, to modification thereof to the extent indicated in the judgment.
– The respondent(s) (Union of India) was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ to the appellant/petitioner for violation of her fundamental rights to life and dignity as a result of the improper handling of her complaint of sexual harassment.
SC Judgment dated 24.04.2020 - Nisha Priya Bhatia Vs. Union of India & Anr. (600.5 KiB, 1,834 hits)
SC: “We, thus, are of the view that no prejudice can be held to be caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. The copy of memo of charge dated 23.02.2017 has been brought on the record, which also clearly indicates that the charge memo does not refer to Preliminary Inquiry Report dated 05.11.2016. Thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of Report dated 05.11.2016. xxx
26. Before we close, we once more make it clear that with regard to charge memo dated 23.02.2017, inquiry conducted by Internal Complaints Committee culminating into Report dated 09.03.2018, it is open for the petitioner to raise all pleas of facts and law before the appropriate authority.” [Preliminary Enquiry Report of ICC]
SC Judgment dated 21.08.2019 - Dr. P.S. Malik Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. (125.0 KiB, 1,684 hits)
SC Judgment dated 19.10.2012 - Medha Kotwal Lele and others Vs. Union of India and others (265.9 KiB, 1,741 hits)
SC Judgment dated 20.01.1999 - Apparel Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (46.0 KiB, 2,248 hits)
SC Judgment dated 13.08.1997 - Visakha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (37.3 KiB, 1,328 hits)
SC Judgment dated 21.10.2010 - D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchnaiammal - Live-in relationship (136.6 KiB, 3,289 hits)
II. High Court Judgements
Consent * Context of Behaviour * Guidelines to Protect Identities of Parties Involved
Consent
— Delhi HC: “Consent, given under coercion, or without volition, is no consent at all.” [Sexual Harassment]
Delhi High Court Judgment dated 25.11.2019 - Ajay Tiwari Vs. University of Delhi and Ors. (1.5 MiB, 1,975 hits)
Context of Behaviour
— Delhi High Court has held: “15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment. Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily amount to sexual harassment.
16. … … Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.”
Delhi HC Judgement dated 31.10.2017 - Shanta Kumar Vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Ors. (336.3 KiB, 4,896 hits)
Bombay HC Judgement dated 24.09.2021 - P Vs. A & Ors. (160.6 KiB, 5,988 hits)
Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published on this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf[dot]in.
