Author: POSH INDIA

Facts of the case

The Complaint of sexual harassment arose out of allegations against the Petitioner which included a remark about
female employee’s hair “you must be using JCB to manage your hair” and the Petitioner also sang a song related
to her hair. In the second incident an inappropriate comment was passed by the Petitioner on male colleague’s
private parts in a common forum where other female employees were present.

The Complainant raised a complaint to Internal Committee for the misconduct stating that she has faced sexual
harassment. The Internal Committee held the Petitioner guilty for such misconduct. The Petitioner challenged the
recommendations of the Internal Committee before the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court, Pune upheld the
decision of the Internal Committee.

The Petitioner challenged judgment and order passed by Member Industrial Court, Pune dismissing appeal filed
under provisions of Section 18 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Rules, 2013 (POSH Act). The Petitioner had challenged the report passed by the Internal
Complaints Committee of Respondent No. 2-Employer.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that considering the nature of comment allegedly made by the Petitioner towards the
complainant it becomes difficult to believe that the same was made with an intent of causing any sexual
harassment to the complainant. The Complainant herself never perceived the comment as sexual harassment when the
comment was made. The comment was made on 11 June 2022. However, the WhatsApp conversation between the
Petitioner and the complainant post 11 June 2022 would indicate that the Petitioner was in fact motivating the
complainant regarding performance of her work and the complainant had expressed gratitude towards the efforts of
the Petitioner. Therefore, it becomes difficult to hold that the Petitioner has committed any act of sexual
harassment.

While addressing the second incident, the Court pointed out that the Complainant was not even present when
personal remarks were made against male colleague in front of female employees. Therefore, it becomes difficult
to believe that the conduct described would cause any sexual harassment to the Complainant

Thus, it was pointed out that even if the allegations are taken to be proved, concrete inference of cause of
sexual harassment to the complainant cannot be drawn.

Court’s decision

The Court held that the findings recorded by the Industrial Court are clearly perverse. The Industrial Court has
failed to take into consideration the exact nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the Petitioner.
It has completely ignored the fact that even if the allegations are taken as proved, no case of sexual
harassment of the complainant was made out in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.

Therefore, judgment and order dated 1 July 2024 passed by the Member Industrial Court, Pune  as well as the
report of the IC dated 30 September 2022 were set aside by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

Facts of the Case

The case involves a 26-year-old man accused of raping a 23-year-old postgraduate college student. According to
the victim’s statement, she met the accused at a bar in Delhi where she was socializing with three of her female
friends. After consuming alcohol, she became heavily intoxicated. The accused repeatedly insisted that she
accompany him to his residence, ostensibly so that she could rest. Trusting him due to her condition, the victim
agreed. However, instead of taking her to his home in Noida as promised, he took her to a relative’s apartment
in Gurgaon where, she alleged, he raped her twice. An FIR was lodged in May 2024, and the accused was arrested
in September 2024. The bail application was filed after he had spent several months in judicial custody.

Contentions of the Petitioner (Accused)

The accused, through his counsel, argued that even if all the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value,
the circumstances point more towards a consensual relationship rather than a non-consensual act of rape. It was
submitted that the victim voluntarily accompanied the accused late at night, under the influence of alcohol, and
hence, the issue was one of consent and not of coercion or force. Additionally, the petitioner emphasized that
he had no prior criminal record and had already been incarcerated since December 2024. He undertook not to
misuse the liberty of bail and assured full cooperation with the trial proceedings.

Contentions of the Respondent (State/Opposition)

The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, opposed the bail plea citing the serious nature of
the offense and the statements made in the FIR. However, the prosecution did not challenge the factual elements
raised by the petitioner regarding the circumstances surrounding the incident. The victim’s statement and the
medical evidence, while pointing to a torn hymen, did not conclusively affirm sexual assault, and no expert
medical opinion affirming rape was provided.

Court’s Observations

Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court made several notable observations while allowing the bail
plea. The court held:

“Even if the allegation of the victim is accepted as true, then it can also be concluded that she herself
invited trouble and was also responsible for the same.”

The Court underscored the victim’s academic standing, noting that as a postgraduate student, she should have
understood the “morality and significance of her act.” The judgment seemed to suggest that her voluntary
intoxication and decision to accompany the accused created an ambiguous context that raised doubt about the
charge of rape. Furthermore, while the medical report indicated a torn hymen, the doctor offered no definitive
opinion on whether sexual assault had occurred.

Court’s Order

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.”

This conditional bail, particularly the requirement to marry the complainant, has stirred widespread concern.

Backlash and Public Reaction

The ruling has triggered significant backlash from civil society, legal experts, and women’s rights
organizations, who argue that it reinforces patriarchal notions of victimhood and dilutes the seriousness of
sexual assault allegations. Critics have especially condemned the court’s statement that the victim “invited
trouble,” terming it a classic case of victim-blaming.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner, a constable in Rajasthan, challenged the charge-sheet issued against him on 12th June 2024 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The charge-sheet accused him of negligence in conducting an enquiry related to a complaint. The petitioner contended that a preliminary enquiry conducted previously did not implicate him and sought the quashing of the charge-sheet on the grounds that the allegations were baseless.

Court’s Observation:

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the validity of the charge-sheet and the allegations of negligence could only be determined after the petitioner submits his defense and presents adequate evidence before the Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority. The court emphasized that it cannot intervene in the charge-sheet process at this early stage, as doing so would interfere with the functioning of the disciplinary proceedings.

“On the question, whether there was negligence on the part of the petitioner or not, the petitioner can put his defence by way of filing his reply and producing adequate evidence in support of his defence. In any case, this Court cannot act as an Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations.”

Court’s Ruling:

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Orissa v Sangram Keshari Misra, the court ruled that charge-sheets cannot be quashed prematurely, especially on the grounds of erroneous charges. It noted that the authority to assess the correctness of the charge lies with the disciplinary authority, not the court. The court pointed out that disciplinary action could be questioned at the conclusion of the enquiry if it was determined that the allegations were unjustified.

The court further stressed that a writ petition against a charge-sheet is not appropriate unless it is shown that the charge-sheet was issued by an incompetent authority. It dismissed the petition with a direction to the petitioner to raise his defense during the ongoin disciplinary proceedings.

Court’s Final Decision:

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to raise his defense before the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority and ensuring the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings. The court also dismissed any pending applications related to the case.