S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
AURELIANO FERNANDES Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GOA & ORS. Respondent(s)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No(s). 22553/2023
Date : 03-12-2024
Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and NK Singh
Abstract
This article delves into the Supreme Court of India’s decision in AURELIANO FERNANDES VERSUS THE STATE OF GOA & ORS which scrutinizes the implementation and enforcement of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter “the 2013 Act”). The judgment, arising from aligned petitions, lays out comprehensive directions for ensuring that the mechanisms established under the Act are operational across all states and union territories. The Court emphasized the roles and responsibilities of District Officers and Local Committees in addressing complaints of sexual harassment and proposed systemic reforms to strengthen grievance redressal frameworks.
This article unpacks the Court’s observations, its alignment with Sections 5-7 of the 2013 Act, and the implications for workplace safety. It also highlights prior judgments, key legislative provisions, and steps for enhanced compliance. The discourse aims to present the judgment’s multifaceted impact on institutional accountability and women’s empowerment in workplaces.
Keywords: Sexual Harassment, Workplace Safety, Supreme Court of India, POSH Act, 2013, Women’s Rights
Introduction
The 2013 Act, commonly known as the POSH Act, is a legislative framework designed to prevent and address sexual harassment at workplaces in India. Despite being in force for over a decade, its implementation has faced significant challenges, ranging from inadequate awareness to the non-establishment of mandated Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) and Local Committees (LCs). Recognizing these lacunae, the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 22553/2023 is pivotal in reinvigorating institutional responsibility and ensuring a harassment-free work environment.
The judgment underscores the importance of robust institutional mechanisms for redressal and deterrence, reiterating the significance of ICCs, LCs, and support systems for victims. The Court’s directives cover a wide spectrum, from creating awareness to operationalizing digital grievance portals like the She-Box, and provide a roadmap for institutional compliance.
Case Background
The judgment arose from C.A. No. 2482/2014, wherein systemic lapses in the implementation of the 2013 Act were identified. The Court observed that despite statutory mandates, numerous organizations, particularly in the unorganized sector, failed to constitute ICCs or provide platforms for addressing sexual harassment complaints. Public interest litigation (W.P.(C) No. 1224/2017) further amplified concerns regarding non-compliance by both governmental and private entities.
Through these proceedings, the Court examined:
- The role of District Officers as per Section 5 of the 2013 Act.
- Constitution and jurisdiction of Local Committees under Sections 6 and 7.
- Implementation of grievance mechanisms like the She-Box portal.
Key Directives of the Judgment
Notification of District Officers
The Court mandated that by 31st December 2024, every state and union territory must designate District Magistrates or equivalent officials as District Officers, ensuring compliance with Section 5 of the 2013 Act. District Officers are tasked with overseeing the implementation of grievance redressal mechanisms in their jurisdiction.
Establishment of Local Committees
The judgment highlighted the criticality of LCs in workplaces with fewer than ten employees or when complaints are against the employer. District Officers must:
- Constitute LCs by 31st January 2025.
- Designate nodal officers in every block, taluka, and urban ward to facilitate complaint submission and forwarding.
Internal Complaints Committees
Employers in both public and private sectors were directed to constitute or reconstitute ICCs under Section 4 of the 2013 Act. This must be completed by 31st January 2025, ensuring representation and statutory compliance.
She-Box Portal and Digital Integration
The Court endorsed the use of the She-Box portal, enabling digital registration and tracking of complaints. States were urged to institute similar systems for enhanced accessibility and transparency.
Monitoring and Accountability
To ensure accountability, the Chief Secretaries of states must submit:
- Compliance affidavits by February 2025.
- Reports on ICC and LC constitution and functionality, along with measures taken for awareness generation.
Legal Framework
Sectional Highlights:
- Section 5: Mandates the notification of District Officers to exercise powers and discharge functions under the Act.
- Section 6: Requires the constitution of Local Committees in districts, detailing their jurisdiction and authority.
- Section 7: Defines the composition, tenure, and duties of Local Committees, ensuring representation from diverse backgrounds.
- Section 20: Outlines the duties of District Officers, including monitoring reports and engaging NGOs for awareness programs.
Landmark Cases:
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011: Laid the foundation for workplace sexual harassment laws.
- Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 297: Reinforced the necessity of grievance mechanisms in the workplace.
Analysis
Challenges Addressed by the Judgment
- Awareness Deficit: Many employers and employees remain unaware of the Act’s provisions. The judgment emphasized awareness campaigns as a statutory obligation.
- Non-compliance in Private and Informal Sectors: The absence of ICCs in the private sector has been a critical gap. The directives aim to ensure universal compliance.
- Limited Accessibility: Introducing nodal officers and integrating digital platforms like She-Box broadens the avenues for victims to seek redress.
Role of Legal Services Institutions
The Court directed institutions like the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to assist aggrieved women, ensuring seamless navigation through legal procedures.
Comparative Perspective
Globally, sexual harassment laws are evolving to prioritize victim-centric approaches. The POSH Act’s framework, with ICCs and LCs, aligns with international best practices like the #MeToo movement, emphasizing institutional accountability. However, effective implementation remains India’s Achilles’ heel, contrasting with countries like Sweden and Canada, which have established robust workplace safety cultures.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 22553/2023 is a watershed moment in addressing sexual harassment at the workplace. By mandating time-bound compliance with the 2013 Act, the Court reinforces institutional responsibility and prioritizes women’s safety and dignity. As states work toward implementing these directives, the emphasis must remain on awareness, accessibility, and accountability.
Future discourse should focus on monitoring the efficacy of these measures, exploring reforms to adapt to emerging workplace dynamics, and fostering a culture of zero tolerance for harassment.
References
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
- Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 297.
Click Here To Read/Download Order
Check out the pdf section for mobile app user to download the judgment!
