Supreme Court Warns Against Narrow Interpretation of Law in Sexual Harassment Cases

The Supreme Court has cautioned that a narrow or restrictive interpretation of legal provisions in cases of sexual harassment would weaken the very objective of the law and create serious practical difficulties for victims. The apex court held that the intent of the sexual harassment law must be interpreted in a manner that advances its social welfare purpose rather than undermining it through technical limitations.

 

The observations were made while examining the scope of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The court clarified that an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted within one department is empowered to hear complaints even against employees of another department, provided the complaint relates to sexual harassment under the PoSH Act.

 

A bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that a restrictive reading of the law would impose unnecessary procedural and psychological barriers on victims. The court stated that insisting a complainant approach only the ICC of the respondent’s department could discourage reporting and defeat the protective purpose of the legislation.

 

Interpreting Section 11 of the PoSH Act, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that proceedings can be initiated only before the ICC constituted in the respondent’s workplace. The bench held that such an interpretation is not supported by the statutory framework and would dilute the remedial mechanism provided under the Act.

 

The court further noted that forcing a victim to approach an unfamiliar workplace or department to lodge a complaint could expose her to additional stress, intimidation, and procedural hurdles. Such an approach, the court said, runs contrary to the intent of creating a safe, accessible, and victim-centric grievance redressal system.

 

The judgment also clarified that when an ICC constituted at the complainant’s workplace initiates an inquiry under the PoSH Act, the employer of the accused employee is duty-bound to cooperate with the proceedings. This obligation arises under Section 19(1) of the Act, which mandates employers to provide all necessary assistance for the effective implementation of the law, even if the accused belongs to a different department or organisation.

 

Emphasising the broader objective of the PoSH Act, the Supreme Court stated that the law is designed to ensure dignity, safety, and equality for women at the workplace. Any interpretation that restricts access to justice or creates avoidable obstacles for victims would defeat its fundamental purpose.

 

The ruling reinforces a victim-centric approach to sexual harassment complaints and is expected to strengthen the implementation of the PoSH Act by ensuring that procedural technicalities do not overshadow the core objective of protection and redressal.