States/UTs Must Notify 'District Officers' Under POSH Act : Supreme Court Issues Slew Of Directions

The Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions to the Union government, and all State/UT governments to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) read with its Rules.Significant among them is the mandatory direction issued by the Court that the States and Union Territories must appoint a "District Officer" as per Section 5 of the Act. Though Section 5 says that the appropriate Government may notify a District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate or the Collector or Deputy Collector as a District Officer, the Court read this as a mandatory condition."Treating Section 5 as directory, would leave a gaping hole in the otherwise clearly delineated workflow and redressal mechanism, and the efficacy of this legislation, as a result, falls flat," observed a bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta.The bench passed these directions in a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution by an organisation named ‘Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation’ seeking effective implementation of the provisions of the POSH Act.It is also important to note that recently a Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli had issued a set of directions to strengthen the implementation of the POSH Act in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa & Ors. Therein, the Court specifically directed NALSA and SLSAs, and the National Judicial Academy and State Judicial Academies, to develop modules for workshops and awareness programmes, in their capacities. Given that the directions passed overlap with the scope of the present writ petition, the Court has, in its judgment, has reiterated those directions as well.District Officer has an important roleEach employer is legally mandated to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee under Section 4. To address the gaps where there is no ICC (i.e., for those working in a workplace that employs less than 10 workers or where the employer themselves are the respondent), the Act provides for an Local Committee in each district, which is to be constituted by the District Officer.Emphasising more about the role of the District Officer, the Court noted that the Officer is also tasked with designating a nodal officer in each block, taluka, and tehsil in rural or tribal area, and ward or municipality in the urban area, to receive complaints and forward the same to the concerned LC.The Court stated, “the role of the District Officer, is pivotal; they are responsible for numerous aspects in the implementation of the Act. It is where the buck stops, so to say, in terms of coordination and accountability relating to the POSH Act. Even in terms of payment and fees the District Officer is responsible for payment of allowances to the Chairman and members of the LC, which it receives from the agency set up by the State Government”.The Court noticed that most states notified District Officers only after a notice of this writ petition was served on them, and even among those states that have taken action they have simply notified a specific post as District Officer, without providing any specific details of the officers, their contact information, etc. Most states have failed to provide documentation on constitution of LCs, and even those who have, many have not constituted one in each district.Adverting to the affidavits filed by the Union of India, the petitioner pointed out that these affidavits have highlighted the generation of awareness through a massive publicity campaign and issuance of advisories, publication of handbooks, etc. “However, it is quite plainly clear that though the generation of awareness is necessary, if a woman suffers sexual harassment at the workplace, the framework for redressal has to in fact exist.,”"The failure to notify district officers specifically, has a snowballing effect on appointment of the LCs and nodal officers, in addition to other aspects. The complaint mechanism, and larger framework - no matter how effective, remain inadequate if the authorities set out in the Act, are not duly appointed/notified," the Court observed."Therefore, the State/UT government must ensure that every district, at all times has a notified District Officer; in case of vacancy caused by retirement, or any other reason, it must be duly remedied, to enable smooth transition between officers, and ensure that there is always someone incharge of this position. Furthermore, effort has to be undertaken to orient, train and sensitise these district officers, with regards to the provisions of the Act and Rules, with an emphasis on their roles and obligations. Similar range of activities must be conducted for the nodal officers appointed and LCs constituted by each district officer," it stated.The Court issued the following directions in this regard : The concerned Principal Secretary of the State/UT Ministry of Women and Child (or any other Department) will...

States/UTs Must Notify 'District Officers' Under POSH Act : Supreme Court Issues Slew Of Directions

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags