More than 17 years ago, the Supreme Court had in its landmark Vishaka judgment laid down guidelines to rein in office Romeos. It had asked every office to have a permanent grievance redressal mechanism to inquire into sexual harassment complaints by women employees.
Despite Vishaka guidelines, women still faced a not-so-friendly atmosphere in male-dominated offices where it was difficult to go against the boss even if he made sexual advances towards colleagues or subordinates.
But something changed in the last few weeks. First, it was a law graduate who, albeit after a lapse of almost a year, summoned enough courage to lay bare in a blog post the agony she bore all these months after being allegedly sexually harassed by a now retired Supreme Court judge.
The accusation did not erase the halo around the Supreme Court, but its lustre was dimmed a bit. To be fair, the Chief Justice of India immediately constituted a three-judge inquiry panel without attempting to sweep the incident under the carpet. A right decision, since a lot is at stake — above all, the faith of a billion in the apex court.
Around the same time, audio tapes of snooping on a woman by Gujarat Police allegedly at the behest of the then state home ministerAmit Shah, who again allegedly acted on behalf of chief minister Narendra Modi, surfaced. If true, it gave a glimpse of what obsession could drive a man to do, no matter what the law and what right to privacy means to others.
And now, the biggest of these accusations — outright sexual assault charges against top notch media celebrity Tarun Tejpal. A junior colleague accused him of gross acts of indecency which under the new definition of Section 375(b) of Indian Penal Code clearly come under the ambit of 'rape'.
The excuses followed — I have apologized; it was a gross lapse of judgment; I have recused myself as editor-in-chief of Tehelka; and it was an internal matter.
When the Goa Police registered a rape case and the possibility of arrest loomed large, the tone changed, claiming it was a consensual act. But is apology, the first reaction of a person accused of sexual assault, enough?
It reminds one of an identical case, Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A K Chopra [1999 (1)SCC 759]. The council's chairman had taken a steno-cum-typist to Taj Palace Hotel in Delhi on August 12, 1988 on the pretext of giving her dictation at the hotel's business centre, which had a more professional atmosphere than the office.
Chopra, the chairman, acted smart with the woman by trying to sit close to her, then touching her inappropriately on the ruse of trying to teach her how to take dictation and trying to molest her in the hotel lift. She pressed the lift's emergency button to force open the doors and foil the chairman's evil design. She lodged a complaint with the director six days later. The director acted by the rule book, especially since the Vishaka judgment was the law, and placed the chairman under suspension.
A departmental inquiry followed, Chopra was found guilty and was sacked. But the Delhi high court said he only attempted to molest the employee and ordered reinstatement without back wages.
The Supreme Court took exception to the high court order. Finding its approach tough and uncompromising, Chopra pleaded that he was repentant and was ready to go to the employee and tender unqualified apology for his misdemeanour.
The court said, "At the conclusion of the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent (Chopra) submitted that the respondent was repentant of his actions and that he tenders an unqualified apology and that he was willing to also go and apologize to Miss X. We are afraid; it is too late in the day to show any sympathy to the respondent in such a case. Any lenient action in such a case is bound to have demoralizing effect on working women.
"Sympathy in such cases is uncalled for and mercy is misplaced. Thus, for what we have said above, the impugned order of the high court is set aside and the punishment as imposed by disciplinary authority and upheld by the departmental appellate authority of removal of the respondent from service is upheld and restored."
After 15 years, we are back to square one with Tejpal offering an apology to the colleague whom he allegedly assaulted, terming his act as "lapse of judgment". Nothing has changed actually!
Source:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Apology-enough-after-a-sexual-assault/articleshow/26331445.cms
Despite Vishaka guidelines, women still faced a not-so-friendly atmosphere in male-dominated offices where it was difficult to go against the boss even if he made sexual advances towards colleagues or subordinates.
But something changed in the last few weeks. First, it was a law graduate who, albeit after a lapse of almost a year, summoned enough courage to lay bare in a blog post the agony she bore all these months after being allegedly sexually harassed by a now retired Supreme Court judge.
The accusation did not erase the halo around the Supreme Court, but its lustre was dimmed a bit. To be fair, the Chief Justice of India immediately constituted a three-judge inquiry panel without attempting to sweep the incident under the carpet. A right decision, since a lot is at stake — above all, the faith of a billion in the apex court.
Around the same time, audio tapes of snooping on a woman by Gujarat Police allegedly at the behest of the then state home ministerAmit Shah, who again allegedly acted on behalf of chief minister Narendra Modi, surfaced. If true, it gave a glimpse of what obsession could drive a man to do, no matter what the law and what right to privacy means to others.
And now, the biggest of these accusations — outright sexual assault charges against top notch media celebrity Tarun Tejpal. A junior colleague accused him of gross acts of indecency which under the new definition of Section 375(b) of Indian Penal Code clearly come under the ambit of 'rape'.
The excuses followed — I have apologized; it was a gross lapse of judgment; I have recused myself as editor-in-chief of Tehelka; and it was an internal matter.
When the Goa Police registered a rape case and the possibility of arrest loomed large, the tone changed, claiming it was a consensual act. But is apology, the first reaction of a person accused of sexual assault, enough?
It reminds one of an identical case, Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A K Chopra [1999 (1)SCC 759]. The council's chairman had taken a steno-cum-typist to Taj Palace Hotel in Delhi on August 12, 1988 on the pretext of giving her dictation at the hotel's business centre, which had a more professional atmosphere than the office.
Chopra, the chairman, acted smart with the woman by trying to sit close to her, then touching her inappropriately on the ruse of trying to teach her how to take dictation and trying to molest her in the hotel lift. She pressed the lift's emergency button to force open the doors and foil the chairman's evil design. She lodged a complaint with the director six days later. The director acted by the rule book, especially since the Vishaka judgment was the law, and placed the chairman under suspension.
A departmental inquiry followed, Chopra was found guilty and was sacked. But the Delhi high court said he only attempted to molest the employee and ordered reinstatement without back wages.
The Supreme Court took exception to the high court order. Finding its approach tough and uncompromising, Chopra pleaded that he was repentant and was ready to go to the employee and tender unqualified apology for his misdemeanour.
The court said, "At the conclusion of the hearing, learned counsel for the respondent (Chopra) submitted that the respondent was repentant of his actions and that he tenders an unqualified apology and that he was willing to also go and apologize to Miss X. We are afraid; it is too late in the day to show any sympathy to the respondent in such a case. Any lenient action in such a case is bound to have demoralizing effect on working women.
"Sympathy in such cases is uncalled for and mercy is misplaced. Thus, for what we have said above, the impugned order of the high court is set aside and the punishment as imposed by disciplinary authority and upheld by the departmental appellate authority of removal of the respondent from service is upheld and restored."
After 15 years, we are back to square one with Tejpal offering an apology to the colleague whom he allegedly assaulted, terming his act as "lapse of judgment". Nothing has changed actually!
Source:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Apology-enough-after-a-sexual-assault/articleshow/26331445.cms
