Case Title: Anita Suresh vs. Union of India
Bench: High court of Delhi
Decision dated: December 17, 2020
Facts
The petitioner, Anita Suresh, was working as an assistant director at ESI corporation in Manesar, Gurgaon. On 8 July 2011, the petitioner filed a written complaint under the POSH Act and addressed to the director general of ESI corporation alleging workplace sexual harrasment by her colleague, Mr. Verma.
She alleged that he misbehaved and made attempts of sexual advances against her. In her complaint, she mentioned two incidents. In the first incident, dated 7 July 2011, she claimed that while sitting among her colleagues, Mr. Verma passed some remarks, which for the reasons of maintaining decorum, she cannot write the filthy language on paper, and had also commented on something which indicates sexual advances. The second incident took place in the presence of staff and other members, where he had asked her to come to the men's toilet to check the shortcomings.
Observations
An internal complaint committee was constituted to examine the complaint of the petitioner. Mr Verma appeared before the committee and denied all the allegations made by Ms Anita. According to him, Ms. Anita made complaint because of the grudge she has against him as he had disposed of the official work in her absence. He further stated that his remarks were misinterpreted and had been taken totally out of context. The internal committee examined both the parties along with eight witnesses in relation to the complaint.
The committee submitted its report, in which it observed that the content of communication of the incident mentioned in the complaint could not be established. IC gave benefit of the doubt to Mr. Verma and transfer of both the parties to another place.
The High court observed that during inquiry, she could not give name of any person present at the time of both incidents and it was difficult to believe that she would not remember the names of any colleague or staff members present. The IC had examined all the person who were on duty that day, but no person supported her allegations and she did not have clean service record in past incidents. The entire complaint of the petitioner failing to prove anything that was connecting with her case made the case look like frivolous one.
Conclusion
The High court of Delhi rejected the writ petition and case was decided against petitioner, as it was found that none of the witnesses corroborated with the petitioner's testimony from the day when the alleged workplace sexual harrasment was done. Petitioner was fined Rs. 50,000 for filing the false complainant. This case clearly indicates that the case has been filed to ruin the reputation of the accused and complainant had to pay for the mistake.
The POSH Act, 2013 was enacted with the reason of helping sufferers of sexual harrasment seeking speedy justice. It is awful to see unashamed misuse of the law for selfish motive. Substantial fines and restrictions/prohibition need to be imposed for filing fake cases so that there is no loss of reputation of the individual.
コメント