The Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill cleared by the Cabinet after a long gap of 13 years of the Supreme Court guidelines on the vital issue raises an important question whether the proposed legislation would be a corollary of the top court’s historic verdict of 1997.
Although the apex court in its verdict had stated in uncertain terms how essential the law was for providing an effective legal framework to protect the working women but the successive governments at the Centre had virtually put the issue in the backburner all these years.
The then Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma, who wrote the verdict for a three-judge bench while allowing PILs by several women organisations, had said that the order was aimed at enforcing the fundamental rights of women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution in absence of any legislative mechanism as the violation of these rights had become a “common” practice.
The immediate cause for taking the matter on priority by the apex court was the “gang rape” of social worker Vishakha in Rajasthan. “The incident reveals the hazards to which a working women may be exposed and the depravity to which sexual harassment can degenerate,” the SC observed.
“Each such incident results in violation of the fundamental rights of gender equality and right to life and liberty,” the top court had said, reminding the Centre and the states that the legislative measures on such a vital issue were very essential to provide the protective cover to women who constitute half of the country’s population, to enable them to live with dignity.
Since the apex court had directed the Centre and the states to take immediate steps to implement its order, the Union government consequently issued a 10-point “code of conduct” based on the verdict to be followed by authorities whether government or private in all work places.
As per the code sexual harassment would include: eve-teasing, unsavoury remarks, jokes causing or likely to cause awkwardness or embarrassment to the women, innuendos and taunts, gender based insults or sexist remarks, unwelcome sexual overtone including those made on phone, touching or bruising against any port of the body, displaying pornographic or other offensive or derogatory pictures or cartoons or pamphlets or sayings, forcible physical touch or molestation and physical confinement against one’s will and any other act likely to violate one’s privacy.
Though the apex court guidelines had been working as ‘judicial legislation’ for the last 13 years, it would be interesting to see how the government would deal with them now and how far it would go for incorporating the same in the bill.