Court: Supreme Court of India
Case No: Sunita Thawani v. Union of India & Ors. arising out of W.P. Civil 644/2023
Date of Order: 07.07.2023
Bench: CJI MR. D Y CHANDRACHUD & MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Brief Facts:
- A PIL filed in Supreme Court by the Petitioner ‘X’ to bring attention to the lack of provisions in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 that protects complainants and witnesses from retaliation or victimization by either the individual alleged of sexual harassment or the organization.
- In light of this, X approached the Delhi High Court, in order to protect women who have reported sexual harassment, witnesses, and those involved in the inquiry process, including those making an allegation (whether express or not) that someone has violated the Act and/or committed a sexually explicit act, amendments to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, should be made.
- However, the Delhi High Court dismissed the PIL and directed the petitioner to seek recourse from the Apex Court for the same.
- In 2020, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the aforementioned order.
- Nonetheless, the Apex Court, comprising a bench of Justices R. Banumathi and AS Bopanna, dismissed the appeal. While disposing of the Special Leave Petition (SLP), the Court granted the Petitioner the freedom or “liberty” to pursue her legal recourse, which includes the option to make representations before the relevant authorities in accordance with the applicable laws and procedures.
- Later, in July 2023, a fresh PIL was filed in the Apex court with the same prayer. However, the Supreme Court refused to interfere in the matter.
Key Features:
- In July 2019, the plea was dismissed by the Delhi High Court, noting that the petition essentially seeks the establishment of a new classification of offense under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act 2013, namely, the offense of retaliation / victimization.
- Courts cannot pass laws. In its opinion, X’s request was “fundamentally misconceived.”
- Prior to that, the High Court also stated that “victimization or retaliation is only the pretext for an assault.” The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redress) Act of 2013 makes it illegal to assault a woman in the workplace even if it does not constitute sexual harassment. If not, the Act cannot be used to penalize it because it solely addresses sexual offences.
Court’s View
The court opined that X must demonstrate distinct and actual occurrences wherein complainants, witnesses, or other individuals involved in cases of sexual harassment complaints were subjected to harm through retaliatory or victimizing actions perpetrated by the accused individuals. On this basis, the Supreme Court rejected X’s arguments and dismissed the petition. However, the petitioner was given the freedom to “work out her legal remedy and make representations to the relevant authorities”.