'Will Help Powerful Men To Suppress Women's Voices': Plea In SC Challenges Bombay HC's Guidelines Gagging Media Reporting Of POSH Cases

The special leave petition filed by the victim says that the directions will serve as a tool for powerful men to continue sexually harassing women and thereafter suppressing their voices on social media and in the news media.

The guidelines issued by Justice Gautam Patel of the Bombay High Court last year directed all cases under the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to be heard in-camera or in the judge's chamber.

The guidelines further barred judgements from being uploaded on the High Court website or from being pronounced in open court. It also disallowed any party connected to such cases from speaking to the media and warned that a breach of these guidelines would invite contempt of court action. The court noted that the guidelines were necessary to protect the identities of all parties involved in such cases.

The survivor-woman in her petition before the Supreme Court has sought for the guidelines to be quashed and set aside in a petition filed through Advocate Abha Singh, on the following grounds:

Against The Principle of Open Court

The petition states that cases before the courts are vital sources of public information regarding the legislature and executive's activities. An open court serves an educational purpose, as well. The court becomes a platform for citizens to know how the practical application of the law impacts upon their rights. Other persons afflicted with similar grievances come forward after learning about litigation by such whistleblowers before the Courts. Thus, the system of Open Court serves various Constitutional and social ends.

"The Learned Judge, by passing the Impugned Order, has shut the doors of the Judiciary to public at large which goes against the principles of Open Court in our judiciary."

All Parties Not Equal

The plea underscores that parties in sexual harassment cases are not equal. The gag order goes the distance to protect the identities of even the corporates. The petitioner has said that no statute provides such protection against organisations that often yield a disproportionate amount of power over their employees.

"The Court has failed to consider that often it is the lone voice of one aggrieved woman, pitted against the large corporates, their vast influence and their powerful male seniors or bosses."

ICC Proceedings Were not Challenged

The petitioner says that she had filed a civil suit for her wrongful termination after she levelled charges of sexual harassment against the director of the company and the decision of the internal complaints committee is challenged before Tribunal. Therefore, such guidelines issued suo-motu was bad in law.

Death Blow To Freedom of Speech

According to the petition, the High Court failed to consider that the right to freedom of speech and expression is the cornerstone of Constitution of India. And the constitution gives every individual the right to speak up against unethical and illegal treatment.

"The High Court has failed to take into consideration that in matters of social justice and women empowerment, public discourse plays a crucial role in shaping the nature of legal entitlements that are delivered to women."

The plea further states that a blanket ban or gag order restraining the broadcast of true and accurate facts would infringe upon people's right to know and violate their right to information, which is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a). "The judiciary is the dispenser of justice and the catalyst for social reforms. And shall therefore in no manner pass any blanket gag order."

Hardships To the Woman

Since the guidelines state that proceedings must be conducted physically and in-camera, restricting publishing of orders, the petitioner's access to justice is "choked" as she is expected to appear in person on every date when other litigants have the option to appear online. Applying for certified copies makes the process even harder for her, violating her right to access to justice under Article 21 and Article 39A of the Constitution of India, the plea adds.

The plea further cautions that these guidelines will directly affect other sexual harassment proceedings and make it easier for other men to obtain similar gag orders. The petitioner contends that it will also deter whistleblowers from coming forward owing to the "undue" protection.