MR. X vs. UNION OF INDIA (2020) –

LEGAL SUBJECTS - Workplace Sexual Harassment Law, Judicial Law, Administrative Law

CITATION OF THE CASE -

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 284 of 2020

FACTS -

The case involved a female constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) who filed a complaint of sexual harassment against a superior officer. The petitioner, referred to as Ms. X, alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by her superior officer, which included inappropriate comments and behavior. Following her complaint, an ICC was constituted to investigate the allegations as mandated by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The ICC conducted an inquiry but reported that it found no substantial evidence against the accused officer, leading to no disciplinary action being taken initially. Dissatisfied with the lack of action and the failure to provide her with a copy of the inquiry report, Ms. X filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking justice and appropriate action against her harasser.

ISSUES -

Whether Ms. X was entitled to receive a copy of the inquiry report as a "concerned party" under Section 13(1) of the POSH Act. The implications of failing to provide the inquiry report and whether this constituted a violation of the POSH Act. The extent to which the Supreme Court could intervene in internal committee decisions regarding sexual harassment complaints.

DECISION BY COURT -

On December 11, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ms. X: The Court observed that under Section 13(1) of the POSH Act, Ms. X was indeed a "concerned party" and thus entitled to receive a copy of the inquiry report. The Court imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the BSF for failing to provide the inquiry report to Ms. X as required by law. Further,  the Court noted that there was a clear procedural violation since Ms. X did not receive the report, which should have been made available to her following the inquiry. Also, the Court acknowledged that disciplinary actions had already been taken against the accused officer under different proceedings and thus did not order additional punitive measures.

IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE -

This case clarified that complainants have a right to access inquiry reports, reinforcing transparency in internal investigations related to sexual harassment. The ruling emphasizes the importance of compliance with procedural requirements outlined in the POSH Act, ensuring that organizations cannot overlook their obligations towards complainants. This case encourages more individuals to come forward with complaints without fear of administrative negligence or retaliation by affirming victims' rights and imposing penalties for non-compliance. The decision serves as a reminder for organizations like BSF to establish robust mechanisms for handling complaints and adhering strictly to legal frameworks designed to protect employees from harassment.

Compiled by Adv.Bincy Benny, Research and Training Admin, ATPA.