Posh law in India : Shanta Kumar v Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

Shanta Kumar v Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Mrs. Shanta Kumar, filed a petition challenging the proceedings of a Complaint Committee and the subsequent order by the Disciplinary Authority. The case involved allegations of sexual harassment made by the petitioner against respondent no. 3 (Dr. Sunil Bose) at the Central Road Research Institute (CRRI). The main incident in question occurred on 29.04.2005, where the petitioner alleged that respondent no.3 entered the laboratory, stopped a machine, snatched samples from her, pushed her out and locked the laboratory. Initially the complaint did not explicitly mention sexual harassment, but later the petitioner claimed that she had been subjected to “all kinds of harassment including sexual harassment”. A complaint committee was formed to investigate the allegations and it concluded that the complaint was not of sexual harassment but a case of altercation in an uncongenial work environment.

The Disciplinary Authority accepted the Committee’s report and exonerated respondent 3 of sexual harassment charges.

Caselaw in focus

Legal Issues:-

1. Whether the Complaint Committee was properly constituted as per the government guidelines

2. Whether the appointment of an ad hoc Disciplinary Authority was justified

3. Whether the Complaint Committee’s report and the Disciplinary Authority’s order lacked application of mind

4. Whether the incident constituted sexual harassment as defined by law.

Plaintiff’s Arguments:-

1. The petitioner argued that the complaint committee was not constituted in accordance with government instruction as most members were subordinate to respondent no.

2. The petitioner further argued that an ad hoc Disciplinary Authority was appointed unnecessarily to exonerate the respondent.

3. The petitioner alleged that the Complaint Committee’s report and the Disciplinary Authority’s order lacked application of mind.

4. The petitioner argued that the physical contact admitted by the Committee should have been sufficient to establish sexual harassment.

Defendant’s Arguments:-

1. The respondent argued that the complaint committee was properly constituted with members of appropriate rank.

2. The respondent further argued that the ad hoc Disciplinary Authority was appointed due to administrative reasons and not to favor respondent.

3. The respondent claimed that the Complaint Committee and Disciplinary Authority had thoroughly examined the evidence and reached a reasoned conclusion.

Caselaw in focus

Defendant’s Arguments:-

4. The respondent argued that the physical contact was not sexually determined behavior and thus did not constitute sexual harassment.

Judgement Held –

The court found no merit in the petitioner’s arguments and dismissed the petition. It held that the Complaint Committee and Disciplinary Authority had applied their minds properly in concluding that the incident did not constitute sexual harassment and their decision was not perverse or without basis.

Legal Principles Established:-

1. Physical contact or advances constitute sexual harassment only if they are part of sexually determined behavior. Accidental or non-sexual physical contact does not amount to sexual harassment.

2. The definition of sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexually determined behavior as outlined in the Vishaka guidelines and as according to the SHWW Act 2013.

3. A complaint committee for sexual harassment cases should be headed by an officer sufficiently higher in rank to ensure credibility of investigations.