The Delhi High Court highlights that workplace sexual harassment persists, stressing that education or high position does not protect women, as the mindset of men remains unchanged despite strict laws.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has made powerful observations on the persistent issue of sexual harassment at workplaces, underscoring that education, social standing, or even holding a high government office does not shield women from harassment. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized that despite stringent laws and the growing discourse on gender equality, the mindset of men has largely remained unchanged.
Quoting Shakespeare to highlight the deeply entrenched gender biases, the Court noted:
“Though grudgingly, woman’s right to equal opportunity of work has found recognition, but challenges being faced at workplace are insurmountable and still resisted by ‘masculine strategists’ who find specious reasons to justify their acts and attitudes.”
The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Asif Hamid Khan, a government officer in the Department of Hospitality and Protocol, Jammu & Kashmir. A woman colleague had lodged a complaint against him under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Moves to Include Women Lawyers Under PoSH Act, Seeks BCI Response
Case Background
A departmental enquiry was conducted under the POSH Act, but did not establish the allegations. Separately, an FIR was registered in Delhi, but the police filed a closure report, stating the allegations were motivated and lacked evidence. A supplementary closure report followed later.
Despite this, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) rejected the closure report, holding that departmental findings cannot replace a criminal trial. Based on the complainant’s testimony and supporting material, the accused was summoned to face trial under Sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (insulting modesty of a woman) of the IPC.
Khan challenged this order before the sessions court, which dismissed his plea, observing that departmental and criminal proceedings are distinct and exoneration in one does not automatically affect the other.
High Court’s Observations
Khan then approached the Delhi High Court, contending that the statutory report of the POSH Committee, which had absolved him, should have been given due weight. His counsel also argued that the complainant had earlier praised him as a supportive officer and that her witnesses did not corroborate her allegations.
However, Justice Krishna firmly rejected the plea. The Court held:
- Closure reports filed by the police do not bind the Magistrate, who is entitled to independently assess the evidence.
- Departmental exoneration is not sufficient to discharge an accused in a criminal proceeding.
- The complainant demonstrated extraordinary courage in pursuing her case despite social pressures, retaliation fears, and repeated closure reports filed by the State.
The Court remarked:
“This is one case where, against all odds, the complainant has found courage to report the harassment she was subjected to by her superior, and has fought her battle bravely despite attempts to deflate her strength.”
Case Title:
Asif Hamid Khan v. State & Anr
W.P. (CRL.) 3501/2018 & & CRL.M.A. 47419/2018
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read More Reports On the POSH Act