Gujarat High Court Warns Of 'Reverse Bias' Against Accused In POSH Cases; Says Misuse May “Create More Glass Ceilings” For Genuine Employees

The Gujarat High Court upheld a report by a cooperative society's Internal Complaints Committee which had rejected a woman employee's sexual harassment complaint against two officials–including a woman, as false and baseless. In doing so the court found that the ICC was unbiased and had complied with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act. It further warned against operation of "reverse bias" against the male accused in such cases, which if extended by adjudicating forums might be counterproductive as it may create more glass ceilings thereby creating fetters in employment of genuine employees. The court passed the order in a woman employee's plea challenging the report of Internal Complaints Committee of a dairy cooperative entity (respondent no. 1) which had rejected her allegations of sexual harassment against cooperative's managing director and a woman employee.Additionally the petitioner had sought a direction to the dairy cooperative to constitute a fresh, neutral, and independent Internal Complaints Committee and direct a de novo inquiry into the Petitioner's complaint under the supervision of a retired judicial officer or such independent authority as the court deems fit.Referring to provisions of the POSH Act, Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order observed that the definition of Sexual Harassment is wide enough to cover both direct or implied sexual conduct which may involve physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct. It noted that the key distinguishing feature is that the conduct is unwarranted and un-welcomed by the recipient. The court noted that the definition also includes reference to create an offensive or intimidating or hostile work environment.On whether the petitioner's case falls within definition of sexual harassment the court said, "While examining the said fact, the ICC has recorded in detail after examining relevant evidence including CCTV footage and they have also referred the investigation carried out by the police and thus, while carried out inquiry, the ICC has completely followed the framework as provided under Section 11 of the POSH Act. The Inquiry Committee has submitted its report strictly in compliance with the provisions of Section 11 of the POSH Act".The court however also noted that as per Section 14, in case complaint is found to be false or malicious, then the ICC may recommend to the employer to take action against the woman/complainant, in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable or where no such service rules exist in such manner as may be prescribed. It said,"There is another underlying context in the present matter. In allegations of sexual harassment, which are sensitive by their very nature, one has to be careful that a reverse bias does not operate against the involved male accused, since the statute itself provides sufficient protection, a double layer of protection, if extended by adjudicating forums to the complainant, might be counterproductive, since excessive abuse of the provisions of the statute will create more glass ceilings than they remove, creating fetters in the employment of genuinely competent and hard-working employee.On perusal of the above discussed facts and circumstances, the writ courts, in judicial review, have to be careful so as not to substitute their own opinions for those of the adjudicating authorities unless there is any patent unreasonableness, arbitrariness, mala fides, perversity and/or illegality evident on the face of the record. I do not find any bias operating in the mind of the ICC or reflected in the impugned decision".The court found that the ICC had complied with all principles of natural justice by giving adequate opportunity of hearing and carefully assessing the entire body of evidence before dismissing the petitioner's complaint.It thus found that the principles of natural justice were adhered to and "there was no flaw whatsoever in the decision-making process adopted". The petitioner was employed with the respondent entity in 2018 and was promoted to Assistant Manager (Marketing) on 29.10.2021.She alleged that on 28.05.2025, she was subjected to physical and verbal assault by two individuals which included the managing director, who had forcibly snatched the petitioner's mobile phone from her hand and confiscated it.She went for a medical examination wherein the attending doctor advised her to lodge a criminal complaint in view of the injuries; but due to apprehension of adverse consequences the petitioner expressed her unwillingness to initiate criminal proceedings at that time. In absence of such willingness, the doctor declined to record the bruise marks in the medical certificate and consequently, no criminal complaint was lodged at the relevant time. The petitioner thereafter was summoned on 29.05.2025 by the police, which was issued pursuant to a purported complaint lodged by respondent no. 2. On 31.05.2025, the...

Gujarat High Court Warns Of 'Reverse Bias' Against Accused In POSH Cases; Says Misuse May “Create More Glass Ceilings” For Genuine Employees

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags