|
 |
| Bare
acts |
|
| Existing
laws in India which can be used in cases of sexual
harassment |
| Amendments
to the laws on sexual violence enacted in the last
two decades have failed to cover sexual harassment.
The following inadequate provisions in the IPC and
labour laws continue to be used: |
|
|
I.
Indian Penal Code
Section 209, IPC - Obscene acts and songs -
Whoever, to the annoyance of others: |
| |
a)
does any obscene act in any public place or
b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad
or words in or near any public place
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three months or with
fine or both. (Cognisable, bailable and triable
offense) |
| Section
354, IPC - Assault or criminal force to a woman
with the intent to outrage her modesty - whoever
assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending
to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine or both. |
| Section
509, IPC - Word, gesture or act intended to insult
the modesty of a woman - whoever intending to insult
the modesty of any woman utters any word, makes
any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object intending
that such word or sound shall be heard, or that
such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman,
or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall
be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one year, or with fine, or both.
(Cognisable and bailable offense) |
Industrial
Disputes Act
Rule 5 Schedule 5 - Cases can (and have been) argued
on the basis of unfair labour practices listed in
this schedule. Such cases can be filed if an employee
suffers unfair dismissal or denial of employment
benefits as a consequence of the rejection of sexual
advances. However, this would only be applicable
in quid pro quo cases. |
|
Shehnaz
Mudbhatkal vs Saudi Arabian Airlines - Shehnaz
was subjected to sexual harassment by her boss
in 1985, and dismissed when she complained to
higher authorities. Her case was won in 1996 when
the Bombay labour court judged it to have been
a case of unfair dismissal under the Industrial
Disputes Act. It ordered her re-instatement with
full back payment, perks and promotions.
Civil
suit - can be filed for damages under tort
laws. That is, the basis for filing the case would
be mental anguish, physical harassment, loss of
income and employment caused by the sexual harassment.
The
Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition)
Act (1987)
Although it is not known to have been used in
cases of sexual harassment, the provisions of
this act have the potential to be used in two
ways. First, if an individual harasses another
with books, photographs, paintings, films, pamphlets,
packages, etc. containing 'indecent representation
of women'; they are liable for a minimum sentence
of two years.
Second, a 'hostile working environment' type of
argument can be made under this act. Section 7
(Offences by Companies) - holds companies where
there has been 'indecent representation of women'
(such as the display of pornography) on the premises
guilty of offenses under this act. (Cognisable,
bailable offense; with a minimum sentence of two
years)
|
| The
Delhi Prohibition of Eveteasing Bill, 1994 |
|
Back
to Bare acts index
|
|
|
| Highlights |
| Shehnaz
Mudbhatkal was
subjected to sexual harassment by her boss in 1985,
and dismissed when she complained to higher authorities.
Her case was won in 1996 when the Bombay labour
court judged it to have been a case of unfair dismissal
under the Industrial Disputes Act. It ordered her
re-instatement with full back payment, perks and
promotions. |
 |
|
| |
|
|
