Gender justice with sensitivity

In August this year the Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment to prevent sexual harassment of women in their place of work. The judgment...

In August this year the Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment to prevent sexual harassment of women in their place of work. The judgment came in response to a writ petition filed by some social activists and NGOs on the incident of the brutal gang rape of a social worker in Rajasthan. This incident revealed the vulnerability of working women in the absence of any legislative safeguards for redress.

The Supreme Court offered an expansive definition of sexual harassment including in its ambit unwelcome sexually determined behaviour such as: physical contact and advances, a demand or requirement for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks; showing pornography and any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. The court ruled that these acts constitute sexual harassment if they are committed in circumstances where the victim apprehends that at her workplace they are meant to intimidate and cause health and security hazards.

The judgment makes it the duty of the employers to prevent the commission of acts amounting to sexual harassment and to provide procedures for the 8220;resolution, settlement or prosecution8221; of such acts by taking all possible steps within service rules and the ambit of law. It also made it mandatory for every employer organisation/institution to set up an appropriate complaint mechanism cell for redressal of complaints of sexual harassment on a time bound basis. Finally, the institutions and other employers are expected to formalise a complaints committee which is free to incorporate within it NGOs or other professional counsellors to handle cases referred to it.

The judgment is one of the most important and well-timed frame of reference on gender issues in recent times. Women are also experiencing the hostility of their male colleagues who feel threatened at their intrusion into the traditionally male bastions. Women increasingly feel physically insecure in the face of sexist comments and attitudes that they have to field on a daily basis. At the same time they often feel discriminated at both the recruitment and promotional levels. Yet, they were unable to seek legal redress because so far such harassment did not constitute an offence.

It is in this context that the judgment is a first major step in filling the lacunae in our legal and administrative structure. By making it the responsibility of the employers/institutions to safeguard against sexual harassment of women the Supreme Court judges have given a powerful legal weapon in the hands of women employees to demand more gender sensitivity.

There is now a pressing need to see that this judgment is interpreted in its true spirit. We have reason to hope that Supreme Court judgments and legislations, if carefully monitored by pressure groups, can be interpreted and implemented to the advantage of women. The hard earned Dowry Prevention Act is only one such case in point. In the case of sexual harassment cases also the pressure groups can ensure quick dividends. It is not that institutions have been entirely callous to such demands. In the recent case of an alleged rape case the Jawaharlal Nehru University has shown a readiness to help the victim and has instituted a committee to formalise the institution of a cell to take complaints of this nature.

However, we need to tread with caution. Some mechanism has to be derived to differentiate between behaviour that may appear to be a case of sexual harassment but in reality may be the manifestation of some soured inter-personal relationship between two adults. This is particularly true in a University situation where many times cases reported as sexual harassment are in effect the bitter breaking points of romantic liaisons. There is an urgent need to sensitively handle such issues on the campuses. Otherwise it will be counter-productive. For instance, the recent media spotlight on 8220;unsafe8221; JNU can only serve to prevent the already reluctant families from sending their daughters for higher education to residential campuses. The Supreme Court has come up with an excellent judgment. Let us all ensure its implementation with a sense of responsibility.