In Senjuti Chakrabarti v. Ld. Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta & Ors, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a writ petition seeking a ‘strict implementation’ of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act (“POSH Act”) within the Calcutta High Court on the grounds of prematurity of petition.

Facts:

The petitioner, a practicing advocate filed various RTI’s that revealed that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act (“POSH Act”) has not been implemented to its full potential. Based on the replies received in the RTI’s, the Advocate filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta seeking strict implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act (“POSH Act”) within the Calcutta High Court. The petitioner prayed to seek an explanation from the Hon’ble High Court on the contradictions surfaced in the RTI reply through issuance of a show cause notice.

Issues:

Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable?

Decision:

The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on the grounds of absolute prematurity.

Reasoning:

While considering the petition, the Court noted that the High Court of Calcutta had a dedicated POSH Committee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act (“POSH Act”). The Court also warned the petitioner to use expressions carefully in the petition. Instead of saying “there is no order”, the Court asked the petitioner to qualify about the traceability of the order. The Court asserted that the petition could not be entertained as the petitioner had failed to even make a representation to the registry which was a step ought to be undertaken. The Court observed that the foundation of the petition rested on certain replies obtained under the Right to Information Act. On this basis, the Court found no weight in the petition and considered it “absolutely premature”.

Conclusion:

While dismissing the petition, the Court observed that the dismissal of the present petition did not restrict the petitioner from making appropriate representation before the concerned authority and follow the proper process of law for the petition to be reconsidered.

-By Tusharika Vig