In a significant judgment on June 17, 2024, the Madras High Court addressed crucial aspects of handling sexual harassment complaints within the workplace, setting a precedent for future cases. The case revolved around a writ petition challenging an inquiry report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy’s decision highlighted the necessity of balancing the rights of the accused with the protection of victims, ensuring both procedural fairness and timely justice.
Case Background and Key Issues
The ICC had recommended the suspension of the accused pending departmental proceedings. The accused contested the report on several grounds, including the timeliness of the complaint and alleged violations of natural justice principles during the inquiry. The High Court’s ruling addressed two primary issues:
1. Timeliness of the Complaint: The accused argued that the complaint was filed beyond the six-month limitation period stipulated in Section 9 of the POSH Act. The Court, however, emphasized that continuous harassment and the gravity of the offense, including serious allegations of rape and ongoing mental trauma, justified the delay in reporting. The Court stated that every day the victim remained silent due to fear of secondary victimization constituted a fresh cause of action, thus the complaint was not barred by limitation.
2. Violation of Natural Justice: The accused claimed that the inquiry process was flawed due to a lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court agreed partially, stating that while the initial recording of statements by the ICC was not in itself violative of natural justice, the accused should be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. This could be done indirectly to protect the victims, either through a screen or by having another employee or the ICC administer the questions.
Court’s Directives and Observations
Justice Chakravarthy set aside the impugned inquiry report and issued detailed instructions for the continuation and completion of the inquiry:
- Continuation of ICC Proceedings: The ICC was directed to resume its inquiry, ensuring the accused could cross-examine the witnesses previously examined. The accused could also present new witnesses if desired.
- Protective Measures for Victims: Recognizing the need to shield victims from further trauma, the Court allowed for protective measures such as using screens during cross-examination or having questions administered by another employee or the ICC.
- Timely Completion: The ICC was ordered to complete the inquiry within 60 days, aiming to finalize proceedings by August 31, 2024. Following the ICC report, the disciplinary authority was to proceed with further actions, including issuing a second show cause notice if necessary, ensuring a fair hearing before imposing any punishment.
Broader Implications
This judgment underscores the Court’s commitment to maintaining a balance between the rights of the accused and the need to protect and support victims of sexual harassment. By recognizing the continuous nature of harassment and the complex psychological impact on victims, the Court has set a significant precedent for interpreting timelines under the POSH Act.
Additionally, the decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness in internal inquiries, ensuring accused individuals have a fair opportunity to defend themselves while also safeguarding victims from further harm. The directives issued by the Court aim to streamline the inquiry process, preventing undue delays and ensuring timely justice for both parties.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s ruling in this case marks a pivotal step in the judicial approach to workplace sexual harassment. By addressing both the procedural aspects and the substantive nature of continuous harassment, the Court has provided a comprehensive framework for handling similar cases in the future. This decision not only reinforces the principles of natural justice but also reaffirms the judiciary’s role in upholding the rights and dignity of victims while ensuring a fair trial for the accused.
