Blog Details

INTRODUCTION

Bhanwari Devi worked as a social worker for the Rajasthani government's Rural Development Programme. She was gang-raped in 1992 in front of her husband by upper-caste males who were enraged by her attempts to stop child marriage in their family. Following this occurrence, there was widespread public outcry, which paved the way for new rules protecting women from sexual harassment at work. Social activists petitioned the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) calling for companies to protect their female employees at all times and safer workplaces for women. In Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, which was decided in 1997, the Supreme Court addressed the glaring insufficiency and established the Vishakha principles. With these rules, the Supreme Court mandated that every employer take the required precautions to safeguard the women who work for them against sexual harassment and to establish mechanisms for redress. India passed the POSH Act in 2013 to shield female employees from sexual harassment in both the formal and unofficial workplaces. The fact that the lawmakers purposefully chose not to impose the additional jurisdiction on an already overburdened court infrastructure distinguishes the legislative plan established by the Act. Instead, the Act mandated the establishment of an Internal Complaints Committee (or "IC") at each workplace with the responsibility of accepting and investigating sexual harassment claims in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Act and the Rules. In order to make sexual harassment a crime, Section 354A was simultaneously added to the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). 

IMPLEMENTATION OF POSH ACT IN SPORTS INDUSTRY

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court criticized the ICCs' deficiencies, citing a newspaper report that 16 of the country's 30 national sports federations had not yet established an ICC. An investigation reveals the official declarations of all 30 federations and contacted the office holders to learn that five of them, including wrestling do not even have an ICC; four do not have the required number of members; another six did not have the required external member; and one federation had two panels but no independent member.

Explanation given by few federations are as follows:

 Gymnastics Federation of India: There is no ICC; instead, a six-person "investigation committee" with two women and no external members exists. "For every issue, we have a committee looking into it. We have been adhering to the global organization's rules. There was no committee at all up until a month ago, but now there is one”, according to president Sudhir Mittal.

Tennis Federation of India: Currently there is no ICC. According to Kamlesh Mehta, secretary general, "Since the new administration just took over a few months ago, we are going through legal procedures, and an ICC will be in place in a month."

Wrestling Federation of India: Currently there is no ICC, but the government recently transferred control of the federation's daily operations to an IOA-appointed ad hoc committee.

Judo Federation of India: The ICC only has three members. A fourth member, who will also be an independent expert, is now being appointed, according to the statement. An official who wished to remain unnamed stated that it would be finished in the upcoming days.

CHALLENGES

Absence of gender neutrality: Unfortunately, the Act says nothing regarding other workers who might experience sexual harassment at work. A woman who claims to have experienced sexual harassment is referred to as an aggrieved lady in Section 2(a)[3]. No woman shall be the target of sexual harassment in any employment, according to Section 3[4]. Thus, by restricting its application to just women, the Act forgoes any chance for the resolution of grievances brought out by men or LGBTQ+ people.

Fear of Retaliation: Most people believe that speaking out against the harasser could result in social stigma, embarrassment, and even more harassment. If the woman complains about a senior employee, these difficulties are exacerbated, raising the likelihood of animosity from coworkers or supervisors, a poor reference for potential employers, or even job loss. This archaic practice of "victim blaming and silencing" fosters an atmosphere in which the victim feels defeated, afraid, and suffers long after the terrible crime has taken place. The list of activities that the employer may conduct while the investigation is ongoing is found in Section 12 (5). These include moving the offended woman, giving her leave for up to three months, or providing any other proposed relief. However, there seems to be a lack of measures to promote a healthy environment and secure the working conditions of the woman in case she chooses to continue her tenure in the same place as the incident.  

Incompetence of the IC: The IC has been given the authority of the Civil Court to conduct the inquiry and review the evidence, and the law has placed the burden of enforcing the Act and Rules on it. Members of the IC have little to no practical expertise in dealing with such delicate and formal issues. Because of this, numerous enquiry reports are contested in the High Courts via writ petitions submitted in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution.

Confidentiality: Employer is required to uphold strict discretion. According to the Act, no information pertaining to the investigation may be disclosed in any way to the press, public, or media. It has been discovered that information always leaks within the organisation or to the media, putting undue pressure on all parties, including the IC members.

CONCLUSION

The need of a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment of women at work is strengthened by the workplace's rapid change. The POSH Act marks an important turning point in the development of gender equality legislation in India, where the Vishaka guidelines have seen significant advancements by the government. Every company is now legally required to raise awareness about sexual harassment, protect female employees from it, and help them file complaints if they are subjected to it. In contrast to the circumstances discussed above, it is clear that the Act has not taken into account the fact that the majority of women are working in the informal sector.  Most of them have been kept outside the protective cover of this law. This includes the women employed in rural areas, small enterprises, unorganised sectors, flexible workplaces, self-employed and those working in home-based industries.