New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that courts should not permit false complaints of sexual harassment to make a mockery of the criminal justice system while ensuring that a hyper-technical view does not frustrate the objective of such laudable laws.

Setting aside a judgment of the Gauhati high court which relied on technicalities to set aside the punishment imposed on a retired Service Selection Board officer, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud in a recent judgment said, “Sexual harassment in any form at the work place must be viewed seriously and the harasser should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law.”

At the same time, “The veracity and genuineness of the complaint should be scrutinised to prevent any misuse of such laudable laws enunciated for the upliftment of the society and for equal rights of people without gender discrimination by anybody under the garb of ‘sexual harassment’, lest justice rendering system would become a mockery,” added the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, in a judgment pronounced on November 6.

The Court was considering an appeal filed by the Union government challenging a May 2019 judgment of the Gauhati high court which set aside the order of penalty of withholding of 50% pension of a former deputy inspector general Dilip Paul, accused of sexually harassing a female field officer who was posted under him at Rangia in Assam.

The Court noted that sexual harassment “humiliates and frustrates” the victim, more particularly when the harasser goes unpunished or is let off with a relatively minor penalty.

Writing the judgment for the bench, justice Pardiwala said, “Sexual harassment is a pervasive and deeply rooted issue that has plagued the societies worldwide. In India, it has been a matter of serious concern, and the development of laws to combat sexual harassment is a testament to the nation’s commitment towards addressing this problem.”

At the same time, the Court observed, “It should be kept in mind that the charge of this nature is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut.”

Directing courts to be on guard when a plea is taken of false implication for extraneous reasons, the 104-page judgment said, “Courts have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence and decide the acceptability or otherwise of the accusations. Every care should be taken to separate the chaff from the grain.”

In the present case, the top court noticed that the high court went on technicalities to set aside the penalty. The HC said that the central complaints committee was supposed to go only into the first complaint filed by the victim. However, it found that the committee even examined a subsequent complaint that was filed by her in September 2012. Again, the HC held that the committee cannot put questions to witnesses and faulted the inquiry report on this ground. Lastly, the HC said that the committee came to its conclusion based on “surmises and conjectures” as it was a case of ‘no evidence’.

The bench struck down the three conclusions of the HC and said, “If the observations of the High Court are accepted, it would lead to a chilling effect, whereby the complaints committee which is deemed to be an inquiry authority would be reduced to a mere recording machine.”

Also Read: Supreme Court to amend term ‘sex worker’ in handbook on gender stereotypes

The top court said, “the High Court completely failed to advert itself to the principles laid down by this Court and mechanically proceeded to set-aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority” when there appeared to be no bar to restrict the inquiry committee’s power to put questions to the witnesses.

“The complaints committee being an inquiry authority and in some sense equivalent to a presiding officer of the court, must be allowed to put questions on its own if a proper, fair and thorough inquiry is to take place,” it said.

The Court said, “the High Court has concentrated only on technical pleas raised by the respondent” as it went on to hold, “Since strict and technical rule of evidence and procedure does not apply to departmental enquiry…there should not be any allergy to “hearsay evidence” provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility.”

The bench cited a 2021 judgment of the top court, rendered by CJI Chandrachud which had warned courts against a “hyper-technical interpretations” of the applicable service rules leading to a rising trend of invalidation of proceedings inquiring into sexual misconduct.

In the case before the Court, the accused officer being a government servant faced an enquiry from Service Selection Board on a complaint received from the victim in August 2011. The committee was constituted under the Central Service Rules Grievance Grievances Redressal Mechanism order of 2006.

The woman in her complaint claimed that while she was working at Rangia SSB, the accused officer was posted as the local head of office between September 2006 and May 2012. He was accused of constantly calling her in his chamber and making sexual advances. She even accused him of using language which was laced with sexual overtures. Her complaint was addressed to Inspector General of Frontier Headquarters, Guwahati, with one copy each to the director general (DG) SSB, New Delhi and the National Women Commission.

The complaints committee constituted by Frontier headquarter gave a clean chit to the accused officer finding that the charges were not proved. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Home Affairs also constituted an inquiry committee in August 2012 called the central complaints committee to probe the same charges.

This committee in its report of December 28, 2012 held the officer guilty on 10 counts. Against this order, the officer went to Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which dismissed his plea. He approached the Gauhati high court against the CAT’s dismissal order of January 2016. In the meantime, he had superannuated in March 2013 as DIG, Frontier headquarters at Siliguri. Based on the inquiry committee report, the MHA imposed penalty of 50% pension cut on a permanent basis.