important judgments on sexual harassment in the workplace – pre 2013 act

1. Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr. 1995 (6) SCC 194
  • 1988 incident.
  • These are not trivial incidents. Refusal to quash FIR.
  • Conviction in 2005.

Problem areas:

  • Limitations of Sections 354 and 509 (outraging modesty), IPC in addressing sexual harassment in the workplace.
  • Inability of law to cover such incidents under existing service rules that only covered moral turpitude at the time as misconduct
  • Inability of the law to address punishment postings and other prejudice the victim faced




2. Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan 1997(6) SCC 241
  • Recognition of sexual harassment in the workplace as a violation of fundamental rights
  • All women have the right to be free of sexual violence and harassment in the workplace
  • Employer’s duty and responsibility to create a sexual harassment free workplace.
  • Setting of internal complaint committee in the workplace.
  • Vishaka Guidelines.


3. Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. AK Chopra 1999 (1) SCC 759
  • Distinction between disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial
  • Complaints may use expressions in a general sense and the AW may explain what she meant during her evidence.
  • Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination
  • Attempt is included in the offence. Act of Respondent was unbecoming of good conduct and behavior expected from a superior officer.
  • Lenient action is bound to have demoralizing effect on working women


4. Dy. Inspector Gen of Police & Anr vs. S Samuthiram 2013 (1) SCC 598
  • Distinction between disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial - acquittal by criminal court does not entitle delinquent of exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings
  • Standard of proof in domestic enquiry and criminal enquiry is different. In disciplinary proceedings – preponderance of probabilities is sufficient.
  • Limitations of Section 294 and 509 of the IPC were discussed and it was concluded that there is necessity for a proper legislation to curb eve-teasing. Eve-teasing was understood to include –
    (1) verbal eve teasing;
    (2) physical eve-teasing;
    (3) psychological harassment
    (4) sexual harassment and
    (5) harassment through objects.


5. DS Grewal v Vimmi Joshi (2009) 2 SCC 210
  • Advances by Deputy Commander to an Army School principal through written letters.
  • Principal reported the incidents to the school authorities.
  • Employment of the principal was terminated by the school authorities.
  • It was argued:
    • Writing of letter was merely appreciable
    • Management of school had nothing to do with the Respondent and hence this is not workplace.
  • SC held that school authorities failed to take proper action under the Vishaka Guidelines and imposed costs on the school authorities.


6. Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors v U.O.I & Ors 2013 (1) SCC 297
  • Complaints Committee recognized as an Inquiry Authority (CCS (Conduct) Rules).
  • State level officers and labour commissioners made nodal agencies too implement Vishaka Guidelines.
  • Wide publicity to be given to the directions of the Supreme Court (Seema Lepcha case).
  • Report of findings of the Complaints Committee to be treated as final inquiry report and action to be take accordingly.
  • Alleged harasser should be transferred.
  • Harassment and intimidation of witnesses and the complainant shall be met with severe disciplinary action.


7. Hiral P Harsora & Ors v Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors 2016 (10) SCC 165
  • The prefix “adult male” is conspicuous by its absence in the definition of Respondent under 2(m) of the SHWP Act.
  • The 2013 Act is in tune with the object sought to be achieved by statutes which are meant to protect women in various sphere of life.


8. PS Malik vs. High Court of Delhi 2019 SCC Online 1070
  • The right to appeal under Section 18 of the SHWP Act is given to an aggrieved person only when report is submitted under Section 13 to the employer. It does not arise from Section 11.
  • Under Section 11 copy of findings is to be provided but when the report has no findings (only opinions), parties are not entitled to have a copy in the absence of prejudice to them.


9. Addl. District & Sessions Judge X vs. Registrar General, High Court of M.P 2015 (4) SCC 91
  • Observing on “sexually colored” - Evaluation of a charge of sexual harassment, would depend on the manner in which it is perceived.
  • Each case would have to be decided on its own merits.
  • Whether the perception of the harassed individual was conveyed to the person accused, would be very material, in a case falling in the realm of oversensitivity.
  • In that, it would not be open to him thereafter, to defend himself by projecting that he had not sexually harassed the person concerned, because in his understanding, the alleged action was unoffending.


10. Vijayakumaran CPV v Central University of Kerala 2020 SCC Online 91
  • Complaints need not be directly made to the IC. Upon receipt of complaints from aggrieved women, it is obligatory to refer such complaints to the Internal Committee.
  • Highlights importance of aligning service rules with the proceedings/status of the Complaints Committee on inquiry.


11. Nisha Priya Bhatia vs. UOI & Anr 2020 SCC Online 394
  • Non hostile working environment is the basis limb of a dignified employment
  • The 2013 law is not confined to cases of actual commission of acts of harassment but also covers situations wherein the women employee is subjected to prejudice, hostility, discriminatory attitude and humiliation in day to day functioning at the workplace.
  • The denial of timely inquiry and by a competent forum results in denial of justice and violation of fundamental right.