New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed all states and Union Territories to constitute an internal complaints committee in all government departments and undertakings to ensure a nationwide compliance of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh issued a slew of directions and said that the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act must be uniformly implemented across the country.
The apex court directed the states and UTs to appoint an officer in each district by December 31, 2024, who would constitute a local complaints committee by January 31, 2025 and appoint nodal officers at taluka levels.
The top court directed the deputy commissioners/district magistrates to survey the public and private organisations for ICC compliance under Section 26 of the POSH Act and submit reports.
They would engage with private sector stakeholders to ensure ICC constitution and adherence to statutory provisions, it said.
The bench granted time till March 31, 2025 for the compliance of its directions and directed Chief Secretaries to oversee the execution.
The direction came on a petition dealing with the implementation of the court’s May 2023 order directing the Centre and the state governments to undertake a time-bound exercise to verify whether panels to probe sexual harassment allegations at workplace were constituted in all ministries and the departments.
The top court said it was “disquieting” to note “serious lapses” in the enforcement of the 2013 POSH Act despite lapse of such a long time. Terming it a “sorry state of affairs,” the bench said it reflected poorly on all the state functionaries, public authorities and private undertakings.
The plea filed by a former head of department at Goa University Aureliano Fernandes challenged an order of the Bombay high court, which rejected his plea against an order of the executive council of the university’s disciplinary authority, dismissing him from services and disqualified him from future employment.
Setting aside the high court order, the top court noted procedural lapses in inquiry proceedings and violation of the principles of natural justice.
…
