Even A Lady IPS Officer Not Safe: Madras HC Directs Installation Of CCTV Cameras In All Govt Offices To Prevent Sexual Harassment

Justice SM Subramaniam confirmed the constitution of the ICC under Section 4 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The judge ordered this ICC to follow the procedures contemplated under the Act and submit a report within two weeks. It clarified that these proceedings can continue parallel with the criminal action initiated against the accused.

The court also "strongly recommended" to the Chief Secretary to the State government to install CCTV cameras inside official chambers and office rooms of all higher officials, "in order to avoid all such allegations/complaints against the higher officials and to safeguard the interest of women officers and women employees from the offences of sexual harassment".

In her complaint, the woman officer has alleged that the accused kept obsessively calling her numerous times after office hours and commenting on her personal and physical attributes. She has also claimed that he used to take her photos despite her objecting to it, and that he tried to forcefully hug her as well.

The court was now hearing petitions filed by the aggrieved woman, demanding the transfer of the accused officer to any non-sensitive post outside the directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption pending enquiry into her complaint. She had further sought a direction to ensure that he does not handle any work-related file pertaining to her.

The accused officer had, on the other hand, approached the court challenging the constitution of the ICC against him as well as the consequential proceedings.

The court, at the outset, pointed out that the Director General of police, as well as the Commissioners of Police of all cities have been "preaching" the use of CCTV cameras in apartments etc, but have not followed the advice themselves.

It observed, "This being the preachings of the Police Department to the citizen at large of this Great Nation, what about the offenders and Black Sheep in the Police Offices, Chambers and Office Rooms of the higher officials and what measures are taken to nab the offenders and Black Sheep inside the Police Department and other public offices and institutions etc."

The court then expressed its disapproval with the handling of the case at hand and asserted that such a complaint must be looked into seriously. It especially highlighted the fact that if a woman IPS officer has trouble initiating action against her alleged harasser, it would be a cause of grave concern for other women.

It observed, "When she is the responsible higher level Police Officer serving in the Department for more than 15 years, this Court is of an undoubted opinion that such a complaint filed by a responsible higher Police Officials can never be brushed aside or kept aside in a casual manner. Such a complaint must be looked into seriously and appropriate actions must be taken by the authorities concerned…

The accused officer had also challenged the registration of a criminal case against him through the CBCID Wing of the Police Department. The court, however, did not find any fault with this, noting that the complainant had specifically requested for initiation of criminal proceedings against him.

The court relied on Section 19 of the Act to opine that once such a request is made by the aggrieved woman, the employer is duty bound to provide assistance with the relief sought by her. It observed,

It further refused to hold the proceedings vitiated merely on the ground that the complaint for registration of the FIR was forwarded by the ICC and not the employer. Asserting that the provisions of the Act need to be interpreted harmoniously with Constitutional rights, the court observed,

Besides, taking note of the nature of allegations, the court opined that registration of a criminal case against the officer was "just and necessary". Thereafter, ruling that two separate proceedings—one criminal and one under the Act—were maintainable, the petition was disposed of.