Calcutta HC addresses workplace interactions, cautions against misusing POSH Act amidst discussions on terms like ‘Sweety’ and ‘Baby’, highlighting complexities in professional interactions and legal boundaries.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOLKATA: Recently, The Calcutta High Court addressed the nuances of workplace interactions, particularly the use of terms like ‘Sweety’ and ‘Baby’, and highlighted the potential pitfalls in the misuse of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, commonly known as the POSH Act. The Court’s observations shed light on the complexity of social interactions and the legal boundaries within a professional setting.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya presided over a case where a female Coast Guard employee alleged sexual harassment by her senior officer, accusing him of using terms such as ‘Sweety’ and ‘Baby’. The officer defended himself by claiming that the use of these terms was not intended to be sexual and ceased once the complainant expressed discomfort.
The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) had initially found the use of these terms inappropriate. The High Court, however, noted that such expressions might be common in certain social circles and not inherently sexual.
ALSO READ:‘DARLING’ Constitutes Sexual Harassment: Calcutta High Court
“The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) deemed the use of the terms ‘baby’ and ‘sweety’ inappropriate. However, it’s noteworthy that once the petitioner conveyed her discomfort to respondent no. 7 (alleged offender) via WhatsApp and other means, he never repeated the terms of endearment. Such expressions may be common in certain social circles and may not always have a sexual connotation.”
-the Court elucidated in its judgement dated April 24.
The judge further clarified the legal definition of ‘Sexual Harassment’ under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, which encompasses sexually coloured remarks and unwelcome verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
“However, inherently, the use of the terms ‘Sweety’ and ‘Baby’ does not always imply a sexual connotation.”
-added the Court.
The Court appreciated that the accused officer discontinued using the contentious words after being confronted, effectively removing the element of unwelcome conduct.
“Furthermore, once the petitioner expressed that the verbal use of certain words was unwelcome to her, the respondent refrained from repeating them, thereby eliminating the element of ‘unwelcome’ from their verbal usage. Hence, while inappropriate, the respondent’s avoidance of repeating the words suggests they were not intended to deliberately provoke or sexually harass the petitioner.”
-the judgment stated.
In detailing the background, the Court mentioned that the complainant had also accused the officer of other forms of harassment like staring and invading her privacy, but found no witnesses or CCTV footage to support these claims.
“Staring can have different implications and may not always constitute sexual harassment as defined in the 2013 Act.”
– the judge observed.
Moreover, the Court dismissed allegations regarding the phrase ‘hugging the coast’ used by the officer, recognizing it as standard terminology in Coast Guard operations.
“Given that such terminology is common in Coast Guard circles and was initially used by the petitioner, any subsequent use, even if present, lacks sexual overtones, as supported by witness testimony, thereby undermining the allegation itself.”
– the Court remarked.
The timing and background of the complaint also led to skepticism about the authenticity of the allegations, with the Court noting-
“The petitioner’s conduct and the sequence of events strongly contradict her claims. Past allegations from multiple colleagues raise doubts about the credibility of her sexual harassment accusation, suggesting it may have been a strategic move to deflect previous charges against her.”
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the ICC’s decision to clear the accused officer of wrongdoing. It also cautioned against the misuse of the POSH Act, noting that it could inadvertently create obstacles for the employment of capable and diligent women.
ALSO READ:‘7 Angry Women’, an Insta handle, opened a can of worms at GNLU
“Given that the Statute already offers significant protection, which is crucial considering the frequent harassment faced by women in workplaces, providing an additional layer of protection to the complainant through adjudicating forums could potentially be counterproductive. Overuse of the statute’s provisions may lead to the creation of more barriers for genuinely skilled and diligent female employees, rather than removing existing ones.”
-the judge warned.
The complainant was represented by Advocates Pramit Bag and Amani Kayan, while Advocates Dhiraj Trivedi and Arunava Ganguly appeared for the Union government. Advocates Arjun Ray Mukherjee and Sarada Sha represented the accused commanding officer.
