Supreme Court orders States to appoint District Officers under law against sexual harassment in workplaces

Bench said women found protection under a law against sexual harassment in workplace beyond their reach for the simple reason that there was no one to go to with their complaints

The court found that many States had not bothered to notify District Officers under the Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act all these years. Photo: wcd.nic.in

The Supreme Court on Thursday realised that women, from domestic workers to employees of small establishments, found protection under a law against sexual harassment in workplaces beyond their reach for the simple reason that there was no one to go to with their complaints.

The Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013, or POSH Act, mandates States to appoint an officer in every district who would play a “pivotal” role in the implementation of the Act.

Sections 5 and 6 of the 2013 Act detail that the District Officers would constitute Local Complaints Committees (LCCs) to receive complaints from women employed in small establishments with less than 10 workers or cases in which the assailant is the employer himself. A District Officer’s responsibilities also included appointing nodal officers under the Act in rural, tribal and urban areas.

In its 20-page judgment, a Bench headed by Justice S.R. Bhat found that many States had not bothered to notify District Officers all these years.

“A District Officer is where the buck stops, so to say, in terms of coordination and accountability relating to the POSH Act,” Justice Bhat underscored.

He referred to how several States had notified District Officers only after learning that the Supreme Court was looking into the issue.

“District Officers were in most States notified after notice of this writ petition was served on them. Even among States that have taken action, they have simply notified a post as District Officer without providing any specific details of the officers, their contact information, etc. Most States have failed to provide documentation on the constitution of Local Complaints Committees, and even those who have, many have not constituted one in each district,” Justice Bhat observed.

Redressal framework

The court said it was not enough to boast a POSH Act, the framework for redressal had to in fact exist.

“If a woman suffers sexual harassment at the workplace, the framework for redressal has to in fact exist. The failure to notify District Officers specifically has a snowballing effect on appointment of the LCCs and nodal officers, in addition to other aspects. The complaint mechanism, and larger framework — no matter how effective, remain inadequate if the authorities set out in the Act, are not duly appointed/notified. Therefore, the State/Union Territory government must ensure that every district, at all times, has a notified District Officer,” Justice Bhat wrote.

The court ordered the Principal Secretaries of the Ministry of Women and Child in States to “personally ensure appointment of a district officer in each district within their territorial jurisdiction, as contemplated under Section 5 within four weeks from the date of this judgment”.