Cabinet puts off ‘lopsided’ bill on s*xual harassment
TNN
1st.
The Cabinet referred the bill to a GoM that is likely to include home minister P Chidambaram, HRD minister Kapil Sibal, law minister Salman Khurshid and minister for women and child development Krishna Tirath.
Sources said the language of the bill needed to be redrafted to ensure that there was no room for harassment of an innocent employer through a motivated complaint filed by a disgruntled employee. The bill brings within its ambit all domestic workers, besides women working in formal and informal sectors.
A senior minister, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "Some more discussion is neededon the bill. You cannot have it completely one-sided." The bill aims at ensuring a safe environment for women at workplace - be it public or private.
1st. News item link:
https://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-27/india/31439670_1_bill-on-s*xual-harassment-workplace-bill-law-minister
Take on the news by a aam driver;
This law is so broad that ruling party’s ex spokesperson driver would have got protection against that party’s spokesperson for exposing “s*x video”. Now politicians have understood what will happen if this law comes into force. They have cleverly muted this law.
Some retroactive reading down memory line are available by one of the bereaved mentor at;
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Sexual-Harassment-at-Workplace-Bill-2010-22616.asp
Now here is a stark Judicial reality on subject matter before prudent readers for discussion (if any takers!):
Woman fined Rs 5 lakh for false s*xual harassment case filed 15 years ago
Smriti Singh, TNN
2.
Holding that the woman had defamed the 74-year-old man, who has now retired, additional district judge Rajender Kumar Shastri directed the woman to pay compensation, saying "every man has his own status, however humble, and he has a right to guard his reputation".
The woman had alleged that she was s*xually harassed in 1996, while working as secretary to the then chief personnel officer in Northern Railways. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had ruled in her favour, but the Delhi High court in 2008 set aside the order, terming it "invalid".
The man had filed a defamation suit against the woman seeking damages of Rs 10 lakh for the "emotional trauma" he underwent.
He claimed that she had filed the complaint of s*xual harassment after he had reprimanded her for not doing her work properly. He also said the prolonged litigation caused him humiliation among his peers.
ADJ Shastri said, "The plaintiff (man) was a senior officer, who served the Indian Railways. There is no evidence against plaintiff about any misconduct except the complaint lodged by present defendant, which was proved as false."
The court, however, showed leniency towards the woman while deciding the compensation amount after she pleaded that she was a widow and could not afford such a penalty. "I agree that status of claimant in society is a factor to be considered by the court in awarding compensation but status and financial position of other party ie defendant (woman) also cannot be ignored. The objective of providing compensation is to console the victim and not to punish the defendant by imposing such a penalty which she cannot afford from her means," it said.
Times View
There can be no dispute that stringent laws are needed to deal with s*xual harassment. However, it's also true that strong laws are more prone to being misused. To prevent this, it could be stipulated that where a complaint is proved to be false, the accuser must not only suffer amonetary penalty but face a jail term too. That would be a real deterrence against abuse of the law.
Of course, the mere fact that the accused in a s*xual harassment case is acquitted should not suffice to trigger this provision. It should be up to the accused to provethat the complaint is false and has been filed with mala fide intent.
2nd. News item link:
Take on the Judicial pronouncement by a aam adami;
Who will monitor the monitors J
