The Prevention of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, also referred to as the “POSH Act,” just received a major judgement from the Calcutta High Court. The court determined that an accused person’s participation in the complainant’s POSH Act evaluation procedure undermined and mocked the whole process.
Background
The complainant/petitioner filed a contempt petition against the accused, the accused’s business, and its representatives. After hearing the motion, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya’s single bench instructed the respondents to demonstrate that they had not disobeyed the court’s instructions and that the disputed appraisal report was unrelated to the allegations made under the POSH Act. The court emphasised that a person who has been accused of sexual harassment should never participate in the complainant’s performance review.
Court’s Observations
Justice Bhattacharya cited Rule 8(a) of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013, which gives the Complaints Committee the authority to recommend preventing the respondent from writing the confidential report of the victimised woman or discussing their work performance. The accused’s participation in the complainant’s assessment, the court emphasised, breached this goal and undercut the protections established by the POSH Act, which was enacted to ensure a safe atmosphere for women in the workplace.
Even if the complainant’s grades or scores improved or were reevaluated, the court strongly ruled that the accused’s involvement in the assessment process contaminated the entire process. It was found inappropriate and against the letter of the POSH Act because the accused, who was charged with sexual harassment, had the power to evaluate the complainant’s performance and affect her future chances.
POSH Case Analysis
The accused, Contemnor No. 5, contended that Contemnor No. 3 had revised his evaluation of the complaint. He asserted that the reassessment and subsequent increase in the petitioner’s scores showed objectivity in the evaluation process and stated that the evaluation of the complaint should not be impacted by his status as an accused. The court, however, rejected this argument, stating that the POSH Act had been broken by the accused’s just participating in the evaluation process.
The assessment report in dispute was created while the petitioner’s writ petition was still ongoing, the court found. Before the court issued its ruling, it was posted on the business’ website for the petitioner to view. There were concerns of wrongdoing after this series of occurrences. The accused’s participation in the assessment process, the court said, damaged its integrity and raised concerns about its fairness.
Conclusion
The decision of the Calcutta High Court makes it clear that the goal of ensuring a secure workplace for women is undermined when an accused person takes part in the evaluation process of a complaint under the POSH Act. It emphasises the significance of maintaining the legitimacy of the procedure and making sure that those who have been accused cannot have an impact on the complainants’ professional or future aspirations. This ruling strengthens the requirement for rigorous respect to the POSH Act’s rules and establishes a precedent for its appropriate implementation.
The court is committed to resolving the matter and delivering justice for the complainant as evidenced by the scheduling of a second hearing in the case on August 4, 2024. It serves as a reminder that the POSH Act is important for advancing gender equality and safeguarding women from workplace harassment, and that any violation of its rules must be dealt with severely to defend the rights of the victims.
