Right Against Sexual Harassment Part Of Right To Life & Dignity Under Article 21 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that the right against sexual harassment is vested in all persons as a part of their right to life and right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court stressed that it is important that that the spirit of this right is upheld instead of rejecting sexual harassment complaints on "hyper-technical" grounds.

The Court highlighted that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace(Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 which is a transformative legislation will fail to come to the aid of aggrieved persons if proceedings inquiring into sexual misconduct are invalidated on 'hyper-technical' interpretations of the applicable service rules.

"It is important that courts uphold the spirit of the right against sexual harassment, which is vested in all persons as a part of their right to life and right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution".

A Bench comprising Justices D.Y Chandrachud and A.S Bopanna further cautioned against the 'rising trend' of appellate mechanisms relating to inquiry into sexual harassment turning into a 'punishment' of sorts for aggrieved persons. 

"We would also like to highlight a rising trend of invalidation of proceedings inquiring into sexual misconduct, on hyper-technical interpretations of the applicable service rules. For instance, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act 2013 penalizes several misconducts of a sexual nature and imposes a mandate on all public and private organizations to create adequate mechanisms for redressal. However, the existence of transformative legislation may not come to the aid of persons aggrieved of sexual harassment if the appellate mechanisms turn the process into a punishment."

The Bench further underscored that it is important that Courts uphold the spirit of the right against sexual harassment, which is vested in all persons as a part of their right to life and right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Enumerating further on the need to be mindful of power dynamics that are mired in cases of sexual harassment at workplace, the Bench further observed, 

"It is also important to be mindful of the power dynamics that are mired in sexual harassment at the workplace. There are several considerations and deterrents that a subordinate aggrieved of sexual harassment has to face when they consider reporting sexual misconduct of their superior"

The Court made these observations while deciding a case related to allegations of sexual conduct against a head constable of the Border Security Force(BSF).

In the instant case, the complainant, a constable at the Border Security Force(BSF) had lodged a complaint against the respondent who was the head constable – his superior. The Court observed that the alleged discrepancy regarding the date of occurrence was of a minor nature since the event occurred soon after midnight and on the next day.

"Deeming such a trivial aspect to be of monumental relevance, while invalidating the entirety of the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and reinstating him to his position renders the complainant's remedy at nought. The history of legal proceedings such as these is a major factor that contributes to the deterrence that civil and criminal mechanisms pose to persons aggrieved of sexual harassment", the Bench further observed.

Accordingly, the Bench implored Courts to interpret service rules and statutory regulations governing the prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace in a manner that metes out procedural and substantive justice to all the parties.

The Calcutta High Court had quashed disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and had reinstated him to his initial position in the Border Security Force (BSF). Terming such an order as 'callous', the Bench further observed,

"The High Court, in this case, was not only incorrect in its interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Commandant and the obligation of the SSFC to furnish reasons under the BSF Act 1968 and Rules therein, but also demonstrated a callous attitude to the gravamen of the proceedings"

Factual Background

On May 2, 2006, the complainant had accused the respondent of committing sodomy thus resulting in the conduct of an enquiry against him. It was argued that both the Single Judge and the Division bench of the High Court had taken a "hyper-technical view of the matter", and had failed to appreciate the provisions of the BSF Act, 1968 and BSF Rules, 1969, which make any disgraceful conduct of a cruel, indecent or unnatural kind, a punishable offence.

The Union of India and the BSF approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's judgment quashing the disciplinary proceedings against the complainant.

The accused on conviction by a Security Force Court is liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or such less punishment. However, while dealing with the respondent's statutory petition under Section 117, the Director-General of BSF had reduced the quantum of sentence. He was empowered to do so in accordance with the provisions of Section 48 of the BSF Act 1968.

The Court held that the charge against the respondent was fully substantiated by the evidence on record and accordingly observed,

"The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court of 18 December 2018 and of the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on 7 May 2009 are set aside. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed."

Case Title: Union of India and Ors v. Mudrika Singh

Citation : LL 2021 SC 705

Appearances : Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Divan for Union of India & BSF;  Advocate Rabin Majumder for the appellant

Click Here To Read/Download the judgment