It’s still not absolutely fair for the fair sex at the workplace

Sexual harassment in the work place is a common enough occurrence. But seldom is anything done to address this grave issue. Seemaa Kamdar examines the problems associated with this issue, and the laws which offer women some hope

Most of her colleagues dismissed the abusive remarks, but Lavina realised that she had the option of not taking it lying down. Her boss, Peter, had used foul language while undermining her work and she was deeply embarrassed.

A lawyer friend told her a big corporate like hers would have a sexual harassment cell, but she found there was none. On her insistence, a cell was hastily put together to probe such complaints. Though the cell has done precious little, the effort has not been entirely futile: Peter now weighs his words before he speaks.

Many women across organisations — public or private — are confronted with some kind of sexual harassment — explicit remarks, gestures, postures, physical abuse, sexual innuendoes, porn talk, foul language or even gender-discriminatory behaviour such as denial of promotion, difference in pay, etc.

Unlike heinous crimes like murder and rape, sexual harassment at the workplace is a complex phenomenon that creates classic conflicts, as it involves known people in an environment that generates livelihood for both the victim and accused. Given its large canvas of prevalence, the law-makers have now decided to do something about it. The Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill 2007 expects to resolve at least some of the anomalies of a Supreme Court judgment on the subject and go beyond it.

Odds against woman

Typically, women refuse to talk about workplace woes openly for fear of losing their job or facing discrimination. Sexual harassment, if taken further, can become a case of an individual pitted against an institution, with the odds weighing in favour of the aggressor. In some cases, especially in the private sector, the victim is victimised further.

Recently, a large private hospital in the suburbs terminated the contract of a female doctor who had complained against a senior male doctor. In some cases, the woman is simply transferred out.

“The absence of job security in the private sector deters an aggrieved woman from coming forward,” agrees member-secretary of the Maharashtra State Women’s Commission, Sanjeevani Kutty. That partly explains why the commission and NGOs receive fewer complaints from private companies.

Sexual harassment, as a violation of a woman’s rights, got a shot in the arm with the Vishakha judgment of the Supreme Court in 1997. The judgment — which arose out of the Bhanvari Devi gang-rape case - acknowledged sexual harassment of all types and laid down guidelines to deal with such complaints.

A decade later, complaints are on the rise though the numbers continue to be less than a trickle. Since 1998, the NGO, India Centre for Human Rights and Law (ICHRL) has received around 50 complaints, while the women’s commission has received about 30 in the past two years. A large number of complaints are about verbal abuse. “It’s a highly under-reported phenomenon,’’ contends Anagha Sarpotdar, coordinator of the campaign against sexual harassment cell, ICHRL. Gender bias, denial of seniority and intimidation are the common forms of harassment that most offices don’t bother to blink at. Sexual harassment is prevalent not only in offices but also rampant in educational institutions. A case concerning a PhD guide in Pune is currently being heard by the Supreme Court.

Committee woes

On the brighter side, the victim has got justice in a few cases. “There have been removals, stoppage of increment, reprimand, memos, etc depending on the magnitude of the offence,” says Kutty.

But, even when a woman decides to do something, the problem areas are plenty. To begin with, she has to report it to a sexual harassment complaints redressal committee, formed by her employer. But most employers have decided that the law applies only to public bodies.

“We’re trying hard to create awareness among private companies that having a redressal committee is mandatory for all offices,” says Kutty, that is ‘every employer’, as the Vishakha judgment explicitly states.

But one can’t put together an ad hoc cell. The committee has to follow the Vishakha guidelines: it has to be headed by a woman; at least half of the cell should be made up of women; and there should be at least one NGO on it. Employers, however, commonly rustle up a cell with a man at the top or with fewer women than required or without an NGO, complain activists.

Again, the women on the committee could be a junior person, who cannot probe a complaint against a senior male officer. When this was pointed out in one instance, the corporate threw up its hands, saying it could do little, as there was no woman in the senior rung. The entire exercise comes unstuck if the committee members are insensitive or compromise procedure. “We often find the procedure has not been followed. The committee singles out the woman for a reprimand and believes that she must have done something to deserve it,” says activist-lawyer, Nirmala Samant-Prabhavalkar.

Recently, a man told the committee that the complainant owed him some money. “That was surprisingly accepted by the committee as excuse enough to misbehave,” says Sarpotdar. The committee is expected to keep the gender equation up at all times even in the absence of a complaint but, largely resentful of this extraneous load on their work time, many members are not keen to even pursue the inquiries.

“Many committees place undue emphasis on evidence. But, how does a woman molested in an elevator provide proof?” demands Sarpotdar. Often, proof depends on the word of her colleagues, who are reluctant to support her.

Coming to the rescue again, the Supreme Court has ruled, in the Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. AK Chopra case 1999, that a sexual harassment inquiry is not supposed to be conducted like a criminal trial. The onus of proof therefore need not overwhelm the committee’s judgement.

The matter does not end here. Even when the sexual harassment committee does get everything right, their bosses may not. Most employers promptly refer a case settled by the committee to yet another department inquiry, which would absolve the accused.

This is a complete no-no. The Supreme Court has issued interim guidelines in the ongoing Medha Kotwal case making it clear that the committee’s word is final. Advocate Vijay Hiremath says, “The committee’s decision overrides that of the disciplinary action committee or any other that looks into the case.”

In the final analysis, as Sarpotdar says, “No matter how progressive our legislation is, it fails if there’s no awareness.”