Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Setting aside the observations and costs imposed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) on Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) in an RTI case related to workplace sexual harassment, the Delhi High Court recently directed the PSU to award costs of Rs 75,000 to the RTI applicant in view of his “long-drawn battle”. The Delhi High Court also waived off the penalty of Rs 25,000 imposed by the CIC on DVC’s Central Public Information Officer, as the same was “not sustainable”. On the penalty imposed on the CPIO of DVC, the High Court held that the CIC had not given any reasons for imposing the same and set it aside, saying the CPIO is merely an officer who acts on behalf of DVC.
A single judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh in its January 27 order said, “The only issue that now remains is whether Respondent No. 2 (the applicant) who has been litigating since 2016 has to be awarded any litigation costs in the matter. In the opinion of the court, while disagreeing with the approach of the CIC of making sweeping observations, in view of the long-drawn battle that the respondent had to undertake, the ends of justice would be met by awarding costs of Rs 75,000 to Respondent No 2.”
“Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the information sought for having been provided and the DVC being aggrieved by the observations made against it, the CIC’s order insofar as it makes observations against the DVC are set aside. The penalty imposed on the CPIO is also set aside. The costs of Rs 75,000 shall be paid by the petitioner (DVC) to Respondent No.2, within a period of four weeks from today,” the high court directed.
The high court was hearing a case wherein a junior engineer at DVC allegedly suffered workplace sexual harassment and her husband filed an RTI application with the National Commission for Women (NCW) in June 2016 seeking the status of the sexual harassment complaint filed by his wife in 2012 against one of the engineers at DVC. The NCW forwarded the same to DVC. The DVC informed the status in June 2017. However, dissatisfied with the response, the applicant approached the appellate authority and thereafter, the CIC.
On October 16, 2018, the CIC ordered DVC to pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh to the applicant and imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on DVC’s central public information officer (CPIO).
The CIC further made several remarks on the state of sexual harassment cases in the film industry, the ‘Me Too’ movement, the responsibility of the NCW in recognising sexual harassment cases, among others.
The high court held that it was not dealing with the sexual harassment allegations of the RTI applicant’s wife, but with the RTI application filed by the applicant. After perusing CIC’s order, the high court observed, “The CIC has gone into various other extraneous issues including harassment in the film industry, measures taken by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, amendments to Section 376 IPC and other issues relating to sexual harassment, including the Visakha case. While the observations are general in nature about sexual harassment and its effect etc., in the opinion of the court, none of these observations which have been made by the CIC in the impugned order were called for in the present proceedings.”
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
