Skip to main content

Copy of complaint must be provided to accused even in the cases of sexual harassment

Central Information Commission: CIC has observed that although Section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Women in the Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 specifically prohibits publication and communication of contents of the complaint made under Section 9, identity and addresses of the aggrieved women etc., to the public, press and media, however, it does not prohibit the disclosure of certified copy of complaint to the person against whom complaint is made. The case relates to a complaint containing allegations of sexual harassment, filed by PG students against two Professors of Delhi University. Earlier, nine students of Delhi University (Faculty of Medical Sciences) filed complaint against Head of their department and his wife who were their thesis guides, alleging sexual harassment. The appellant wife sought information related to the complaint from the University but was denied on the ground that disclosure of such information would be inappropriate, as it would endanger the physical safety of the complainants/accused and such personal information is held by the University in fiduciary relationship with the individuals concerned. Before the Commission, University submitted that as the complaint alleged sexual harassment, as per the law details about complaint and related information could not be given to the two doctor husband and wife (appellant). After perusal of material on record, CIC noted that though “allegations (in the complaint) were substantially of serious harassment, but there is no possibility of considering them as of sexual harassment.” Commission further noted even if it is assumed that the complaint in this case discloses possibility of sexual harassment charge, Section 16 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 does not prohibit sharing of the copy of complaint with the officer against whom complaint was filed. While observing that, “Principles of natural justice demand that the copy of the complaint must be given to the accused officer so that he would get ample opportunity to defend the charge made against him,” CIC ordered disclosure of complaint to the appellant. [A.L. Agarwal v. Delhi University, 2015 SCC OnLine CIC 14924, decided on 9-12-2015]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a