Explained: When and where the sexual harassment law holds, against whom

If a woman is harassed by a man who is not in the same organisation, whom does she approach? Does the law cover a complaint that is made several years after the alleged incident? Vrinda Grover, an advocate at the Supreme Court, explains.

Do the provisions of the sexual harassment law cover only situations in which both parties were employed by the same organisation at the time of the incident?

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and Rules under it, provide redress to an “aggrieved woman”, which includes women employed by the organisation, as well as women associated with the organisation in any capacity, such as a visitor or an intern; or other women aggrieved by sexual harassment committed in relation to the work or workplace of that organisation. A complaint can be filed against an employee of the organisation, or even an outsider who comes into contact in the course of or in relation to the work, such as a consultant, service provider, a vendor, with the workplace or the organisation.

If the woman no longer works, or has never worked in the same organisation as the man who committed the sexual harassment, which authority should she approach?

If the sexual harassment took place while she was employed by the organisation, she can file a complaint even after she has left. If she had never been employed by the organisation, she may file a complaint with the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the organisation where the man works, if the harassment has taken place in the course of work, or in relation to the man’s professional activities.

READ | When a woman is harassed at work

The woman may also file a complaint before the Local Complaints Committee, which is to be constituted in every district. The government has failed to create sufficient awareness about the existence of the LC and as of today the LC does not seem to offer a robust option for redress.

The woman may also opt to file a criminal complaint under IPC Section 354A and other relevant sections. The law allows the woman to access remedies under civil and criminal law simultaneously.

Some of the cases being reported are several years old. Up to when can a complaint be reasonably followed up?

The Act provides for a limitation of 90 days for filing of complaints; this may be extended by another 90 days by the Internal Committee if the delay is reasonably explained. In criminal law, there is a limitation period ranging from one year to three years depending on the nature of the offence. There is no limitation period for filing a complaint of rape with the police.

Opinion | Some moments in the life of a patriarchy provide points of confrontation — and also openings for change

Another factor that needs to be taken into consideration is if, at the time when the sexual harassment was committed, the workplace did not have a redressal mechanism as mandated in 1997 by the Supreme Court (Vishakha) and in 2013 by the Statute, then the non-filing of a complaint cannot be held against the woman.

It is very important that the law must acknowledge the reasons that cause women to suffer in silence, to speak out at times after years, or even decades. In Punita K Sodhi v Union of India and Ors (2010), Delhi High Court held that the concept of limitation may not find relevance in a case of sexual harassment, as sexual harassment ought not to be viewed as a one-time incident, but the impact of sexual harassment must be taken into consideration to understand it as a continuing wrong.

Some medical, journalism and legal professionals have complained of harassment from men they have met for professional reasons on neutral territory outside the workplaces of both. Can her employers take up her complaint with his employers, or should the police be involved?

Workplace, under the law, includes any place visited in the course of or in relation to work. Hence a complaint can be filed with regard to any incident of sexual harassment which takes place in the course of work, or in the course of activities associated with discharge of professional duties.

If the sexual harassment is committed on “neutral territory” the woman can file a complaint with the Internal Committee of her organisation; however, this IC may not have the power to impose an effective penalty on the man who committed the harassment. The woman may file a complaint with the IC of the organisation that the man is employed with. In such cases the woman’s employer has a statutory duty to support her through the complaint and inquiry process. The woman may also choose to file a complaint with the police, and in such case her employer has a duty to provide all required support such as legal assistance, leave etc.

If the alleged incident involves individuals working in the same organisation, but has taken place in a private space outside the premises of the workplace and outside of work hours, will that be a fit case to be taken up by their employer?

It must be kept in mind that even while the act of sexual harassment has taken place in a private space outside of work hours, the relationship between the two parties has arisen during the course of work, and these two persons will continue to share a professional relationship. Further, such conduct, even if committed in private spaces, has the potential, in the future, to impact other women at the workplace. The employer must address the incident through appropriate measures in order to fulfil its constitutional and legal duty to provide a safe work environment.

On whom does the burden of proof lie when there are no witnesses to the alleged incident?

Let us be clear that the burden of proof, whether in civil or in criminal proceedings, always and only lies with the woman who makes the complaint. In criminal proceedings the charge will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, since the penalty involves restraint on personal liberty. In civil proceedings, like the inquiry under the Act, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, since the penalties are civil in nature.

However, it has been acknowledged through decades of jurisprudence that gender-specific offences are often committed only when there are no third parties present, and their inherent nature leaves behind no “corroborative evidence”. The panic of misuse created around “he said-she said” is dangerous. All inquiries and trials have evolved principles based on which the testimony of the woman is to be appreciated and its credibility determined, as well as ways in which the defence of the accused is to be analysed.

Do certain circumstances, such as one or both parties having consumed alcohol, constitute legitimate defence for an action that the woman deems to be sexual harassment?

The consumption of alcohol or atmosphere of a party are not defences for transgressions over a woman’s sovereign right over her body, either in law or in civilised behaviour. It is important to realise that many professions are structured to include certain forms of social interaction; a woman’s presence at such events therefore cannot be read to imply her acquiescence to the culture and practices in such spaces.

Can a past or continuing romantic relationship constitute legitimate defence for an action that the woman deems to be sexual harassment?

No, it cannot be a defence, particularly since recent judgments of the Supreme Court including on Privacy and Adultery recognise the bodily and sexual autonomy of women as a fundamental right.

The answer to this will, however, depend on the specific facts of the case.

It must be reiterated that the employer has a duty to provide a safe work environment for all employees irrespective of the past or present relationship between the two parties. Often these cases are misunderstood and dismissed as “relationships gone sour”. No law allows an employer to turn a blind eye whether it be a instance of domestic/marital violence or violation in an intimate relationship, all of which are gender-based wrongs. A “no” has to be respected and cannot be re-interpreted.

Do the rules depend on the nature of the professional relationship between the woman and the man she is accusing? Does it matter if they are co-workers, or in a hierarchical/reporting relationship, when determining sexual harassment and its extent?

The Act and Rules provide a definition of sexual harassment and lay down the procedure applicable to all complaints. In many instances of sexual harassment it is seen that the power and position of the perpetrator allows him to commit sexual harassment with impunity. The superior/reporting position also enables quid pro quo harassment, which is often misread as a straightforward consensual relationship. The superior-subordinate relationship must be kept in mind by the inquiry committee while determining whether or not sexual harassment took place, as well as while evaluating the response of the woman, her subsequent conduct etc. It must also be kept in mind while determining the penalty.

Vrinda Grover is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India.

Bombay High Court quashes molestation case filed by Preity Zinta against Ness Wadia

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed a molestation case filed by actor Preity Zinta against industrialist Ness Wadia during an Indian Premier League (IPL) match in 2014. A division bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Bharati H Dangre, which was hearing a petition filed by Wadia seeking quashing of the FIR, had asked Zinta and the industrialist to appear before the court on Wednesday for the verdict.

In its previous hearing, the HC had directed Zinta to file a reply to the petition filed by Wadia. Zinta, however, did not file a reply. Zinta had accused Wadia of molestation and criminal intimidation at Wankhede Stadium on May 30, 2014, during an Indian Premier League (IPL) match and lodged an FIR at the Marine Drive police station. The two are co-owners of Kings XI Punjab IPL team.

However, the chargesheet against Wadia in the case was filed four years later this year in February under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code.

While recording her statement before the police, the actor had said Wadia was abusing the team staff over ticket distribution when she was seated below the air-conditioned box in the Garware Pavilion. She asked him to calm down as their team was winning.

However, Wadia abused her and even molested her by grabbing her arm, Zinta told the police. The actor had even submitted four photographs, which showed ‘bruise-like’ marks on her right arm. She had claimed the ‘injury marks’ were caused when Wadia allegedly grabbed her with force.

In July that year, Wadia had shared the names of nine people who he claimed were present at the stadium and requested the police to record their statements. In May 2016, Wadia’s statement was recorded wherein he denied all allegations levelled against him.

Indian Army’s surgical strikes pads across Line of Control (LoC).

Uri teaser: Vicky Kaushal’s military drama will leave you with goosebumps-“Yeh Naya Hindustan Hai Yeh Hindustan Ghar Mein Ghusega Bhi Aur Maarega Bhi (This is the new India, it will not only enter the house of its enemies but will also kill them)”, utters Paresh Rawal in the recently released teaser of Uri and sets the tone of the film. Starring Vicky Kaushal, Uri is based on surgical strikes on terror launch pads across Line of Control (LoC).

On September 18, 2016, 19 soldiers were killed in an early morning attack by Pakistani terrorists at the 12 Infantry Brigade headquarters in Uri. In response, on September 29, the Indian Army’s Special Forces carried out “surgical strikes” on terror launch pads across Line of Control (LoC).

In the teaser, we see Vicky Kaushal gunning down terrorists in an operation and his intense gaze makes it clear that he means business. The intense paramilitary training which the actor went through for the movie shows in the teaser and leaves one wanting more.

The official description of the movie reads, “A defining moment in India’s military history. A moment that paved a path to a new, stronger India. Presenting the official teaser of URI.” Written and directed by Aditya Dhar, the movie is scheduled to release on January 11, 2019. Speaking about the film, Dhar had earlier said, “This is the story of what happened in those eleven days. It’s an honour and very reassuring to be backed by Ronnie Screwvala and to execute on this vision and what we believe is an engaging and thrilling story inspired by this true-life incident.”

Talking about Uri, Vicky had earlier said, “When this film came to me and we had this discussion. I was really thrilled and kicked about it because this is one story that I feel that everyone needs to know. One of the fantastic army operations that the Indian army has conducted and with great efficiency. I also feel it is a great opportunity and also a responsibility for all of us to portray this story.”

://youtu.be/aXYPUqFL9ZU

Indian man charged for groping woman in Dubai PTI

Dubai: An Indian youth has been slapped with molestation charges by a Dubai court after he allegedly groped a woman while she was walking late at night, according to a media report.

The man, a driver by profession, denied the charge, claiming that he touched the woman by mistake, the Khaleej Times reported.

The prosecutors accused the 30-year-old man of inappropriately touching the Filipina woman and then fleeing the scene.

The case was registered at the Bur Dubai police station.

The complainant, a 25-year-old waitress, told the prosecution that she did not know the suspect prior to the incident.

“It was at 1:20 am on August 3. I was near a restaurant and was about to go to a supermarket. My friend was with me. There were a group of five to six men who were coming in the opposite way. One of them groped me intentionally. I yelled at him but he then replied in a very abusive and vulgar manner,” the woman was quoted as saying by Khaleej Times.

He did not just ignore her screams for help but also laughed and continued his way, she said, adding, “I followed them and kept screaming until an African man came and restrained the defendant.”

The woman said she had no idea about what could have prompted the accused into that behaviour as she did not encourage or provoke him in any way.

A ruling will be pronounced on October 11.

Another PNB fraud exposed

Official held, fraudsters get Rs 7.5 crore for 'free'! Shocking details here-

Getting a bank loan is not an easy task for millions of genuine people in many parts of the country. But for the fraudsters, it is apparently getting easy these days. More so when the bank officials are themselves willing to help for a small cut. Here is the latest example of how conniving bank officials pass loans even to those having fake documents. Incidents like these, however, jolt an honest person's belief in the banking system. 

The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police has arrested four people for running a loan racket. Among the arrested accused is an official of the Punjab National Bank (PNB). During the investigation, the EOW found that the accused, in connivance with the PNB officials, had got a loan of Rs 7.5 crore sanctioned for opening a high-end luxurious bar in Connaught Place, Delhi, reported news agency ANI. The accused had submitted fabricated documents and the collateral offered by them against the loan never existed. 

The arrested people in the alleged fraud have been identified as Amarjeet Singh, Ajay Kumar Sharma, Suresh and AGM PK Varun of PNB Brady house Branch, in Mumbai.

The report said that the accused had opened an account at PNB Mayur Vihar, Phase 3 Branch on the basis of fake documents in the name of one 'Sarita' with the help of the then Bank Manager, Sheetal Garg. They first withdrew a loan of Rs 49.9 lakh as cash and used it for setting up a temporary factory at Surajpur, Noida. They did so to get a further loan sanctioned by showing the factory in working condition.

Later, Ajay Kumar Sharma, who has been identified as the alleged main player for facilitating sanctioning of the loan in connivance with accused Amarjeet Singh, opened a shell company having its office at Mumbai. Suresh was shown as one of the Directors of the company and they availed Rs. 5 crore cash credit facility in name of the fake company.

They transferred this loan amount further into other accounts and siphoned off. ANI reported that the accused also obtained Rs 2 crore overdraft facility from the same bank. This amount was also transferred into another account and misappropriated. The accused had submitted some bogus properties in Delhi as collateral against the loan. Not only this, the accused never visited Mumbai and all formalities of opening of the account and equitable mortgage of property was facilitated in Delhi only by AGM PK Varun. 

‘Unprovoked’ arson attack on Indian family in UK; hate crime, say cops

An Indian-origin family of four in the UK had a lucky escape when their house was targeted in an “unprovoked” arson attack which the police is treating as a hate crime.

Mayur Karlekar, called as Mac Karlekar, and his wife Ritu and two young children were asleep in their home late on Saturday night when they were woken up by their neighbours, who had called in the fire brigade to tackle a huge blaze outside their home in south-east London’s Borkwood Park area of Orpington.

“The Metropolitan Police is investigating this as a hate crime. It is being dealt with as a case of arson and criminal damage. No arrests have been made so far,” a Metropolitan Police spokesperson said on Wednesday.

CCTV images from the area reportedly show a group of four-five youths, dressed in hoodies, attempting to start a fire on the hedges outside the Karlekars’ home.

“We all were sleeping and were luckily woken up by neighbours on time. Though most of the damage was done to the hedges leaving the house now exposed, my son’s bedroom was just saved – he was sleeping in it at the time of the incident,” said Karlekar, a digital consultant who move to the UK from Mumbai in the late 1990s.

“We are glad it was stopped on time but the damage to our neighbourhood, our society, to our home has been done, irrecoverably. We have not caused any trouble to anyone and have only helped others in all our lifetime. I was special police myself doing voluntary unpaid work. This act happening to us was a complete shock,” said the 43-year-old, who has been appealing for information to bring the suspects to justice across various social media channels.

Karlekar, originally from Dombivali in Thane district of Maharashtra, said he wanted to ensure no other families in the neighbourhood become victims of a similar hate crime.

“Hope this kind of arson attack does not happen to any family as it happened on ours unprovoked. If you know anyone or seen any video floating around on social media of dares, please help stop it. Be safe, be vigilant,” he said in his appeal.

Images posted on social media reveal huge flames and extensive damage to the outside of the property in the residential suburb in the borough of Bromley in London. Karlekar has expressed his unhappiness with the nearly 32-hour delay in the Met Police starting their investigation into the case.

“This is the second incident in this area, the first one being a robbery, but we feel more may have happened or are going unreported. We want those people to come out and raise their voice too,” he said.

British police describe hate crimes as those perceived as motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a personal characteristic and monitor it under five strands – race or ethnicity; religion or beliefs; sexual orientation; disability; or transgender identity.

According to official figures released earlier this year, incidents of hate crime had registered a spike in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit referendum in 2016. There were 80,393 offences in 2016-17, compared with 62,518 in 2015-16, the largest increase since the UK Home Office began recording these figures in 2011-12.

Verdict regarding murder of J Dey, journalist, Mumbai.

Mumbai:  News agency ANI reported that a Special CBI court in Mumbai, sentenced gangster Chhota Rajan for life in jail. The verdict came nearly seven years after crime journalist Jyotirmoy Dey was gunned down in suburban Mumbai.

 Jyotirmoy Dey, 56, was shot dead when he was on his way home in Powai. The incident happened in broad daylight on June 11, 2011. J Dey was working as a crime reporter with the Midday Eveninger.

The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act court sentenced Chhota Rajan and eight others to life imprisonment in this case. The court has also imposed fine of Rs 26 lakh on each of them.

In total nine persons were convicted in the case. They were Chhota Rajan, Satish Kaliya, Anil Waghmode, Abhijit Shinde, Nilesh Shendge, Arun Dake, Mangesh Agawane, Sachin Gaikwad and Deepak Sisodia.

Dey was planning to write a book in which Chhota Rajan was to be portrayed as a smalltime crook. The book, titled "Chindi -- Rags to Riches" was meant to be a compilation of the stories of 20 gangsters. Rajan became angry with this information and ordered the killing.

Rajan was arrested in 2015.  The CBI took over the investigation thereafter.  Rajan tried several times between January and March 2011 to stop Dey from writing stories or books about him.

The gangster is currently lodged in Delhi's Tihar Jail.

Tags : chhota rajan, Maharashtra control of organised crime act