Education, High Post Don't Protect Women From Sexual Harassment At Workplace, Mindset Of Men Unchanged Despite Strict Laws: Delhi High Court

Citing Shakespeare, the Delhi High Court recently observed that despite stringent law and repeated lamentation about gender neutrality and equality, the psychology and mindset of men in workplace where sexual harassment continues to haunt women has remained unchanged, especially when it involves “Power-Dynamics.”

“While now, though grudgingly, woman's right to equal opportunity of work, has found recognition but challenges being faced at Workplace are insurmountable and still resisted by “masculine strategists” who have specious reasons to justify their acts and attitudes. The underlying challenge is the low reporting largely, due to societal pressures, fear of retaliation and reprisals from perpetrator,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

The Court further said that education or high Government position is no protection to a woman from being subjected to sexual harassment.

Justice Krishna was dealing with a plea filed by a man against whom a woman filed a complaint in the Department of Hospitality and Protocol, Jammu and Kashmir Government, under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Enquiry concluded that the allegations made against him were not established.

An FIR was also filed in which a closure report was filed by the Delhi Police on the ground that the complaint was motivated and there was no evidence on record which supported the allegations made against the man. A supplementary closure report was also filed.

However, the CMM said that proceedings of the Complaints Committee cannot be equated to a criminal trial and that the conclusions reached by the IO were not correct. Accordingly, the accused was summoned to face trial for the offence under Section 354A and 509 of IPC.

The accused's criminal revision petition against the summoning order was rejected by the sessions court, observing that the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are two different procedures and operate in different fields with specific objectives.

The accused then approached the High Court against the summoning order, arguing that the Enquiry Committee constituted by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir under the POSH Act is a statutory Report and could not have been ignored or brushed aside by the courts.

It was submitted that the Complainant shared a cordial relationship with the accused and praised him as an efficient officer and thanked him for his support. It was also said that the witnesses produced by the Complainant in her support did not corroborate the allegations of sexual harassment.

Dismissing the plea, the Court concluded that even though the State had filed the closure report twice, the CMM was well within its powers to appreciate the investigations done and the evidence collected to form an independent opinion to take cognizance.

It further held that mere exoneration in the Departmental Enquiry cannot be the sole basis for discharging the accused in the FIR.

“This is one case where against all odds, the Respondent No.2/Complainant has found courage to not only to report the harassment to which she was subjected by her superior, but has stood all adversity and has fought her battle bravely till the Court to get justice for herself. The might of the State and attempt to deflate her strength and courage, can also be observed from the fact that the State filed the Closure Report in the FIR, not once but twice. Unfortunately, the Court judiciously has stood with the law, which incidentally in the present case, sides the Complainant,” the Court said.

It concluded that there was sufficient material by way of statement of the Complainant and the witnesses to prima facie disclose an offence against the accused under Section 354A and 509 of IPC.

Title: ASIF HAMID KHAN v. STATE & ANR

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1074

Click here to read order