Facts of the Case

The case revolves around allegations of sexual harassment and the systemic failures within a prominent Medical College Hospital in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner filed a complaint against the then Resident Medical Officer (RMO), alleging that he had subjected her to unwelcome and sexually coloured conversations. Despite filing her complaint on 16.10.2023 with the Principal of the college, no action was taken. Instead, the Principal sought an explanation from her, citing procedural issues. Further complaints emerged against a Personal Assistant to the Principal and the same fifth respondent for harassing female interns. When institutional mechanisms failed, she lodged a police complaint, leading to the arrest and subsequent release of the fifth respondent. Despite the filing of a formal representation on 26.10.2023 seeking an inquiry under Section 11 of the POSH Act (Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act), the hospital’s Internal Committee (IC) did not initiate any investigation.

Parallelly, the petitioner assumed the role of Acting RMO after the arrest of the respondent. She began addressing harassment complaints from interns and students, which further exposed the institution’s failure to act against sexual misconduct. However, her proactive stance led to retaliation by the Principal, who issued frivolous memorandums and eventually suspended her on 24.06.2024. Her suspension was later revoked following an inspection by the Commissioner, but it highlighted a troubling pattern of harassment and retaliation within the institution. Additionally, Head of the Department, who supported the victims, also faced retaliation from the Principal, prompting him to file a writ as well.

Contention of the Petitioners

The Petitioner contended that the Principal shielded the perpetrators of sexual harassment, ignored multiple complaints, and failed to constitute or refer the complaints to the Internal Committee (IC) as required under the POSH Act. She sought a writ of mandamus to direct the government to take disciplinary action against the fourth and fifth respondents and to ensure that an independent committee investigates the matter.

She argued that her suspension was a form of retaliation for her proactive steps in addressing harassment complaints, and she sought judicial intervention to revoke the suspension and prevent further harassment by the Principal.

The Head of the Department also contended that he was being targeted for supporting female colleagues and was not provided with necessary documents related to the allegations against him. He requested the court to direct the government to appoint an independent inquiry officer to handle his case.

Contention of the Respondents

The third respondent Principal maintained that appropriate steps were taken within the institution and attempted to shift blame to procedural issues, claiming that the petitioners failed to follow internal protocols. He accused the petitioners of escalating matters unnecessarily and argued that institutional actions were being misconstrued as harassment. The State Government and other respondents remained largely silent on their failure to enforce the POSH Act and their delayed response to the petitioners’ complaints.

Court’s Observations

The Madras High Court expressed serious concerns about the failure of the institution to implement the POSH Act effectively. It observed that the Internal Committee (IC) either did not exist or was dysfunctional, which contravened the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Vishaka Guidelines. The court highlighted the indifference shown by the hospital’s administration and emphasized that the Principal actively shielded perpetrators instead of ensuring justice.

Further, the court noted a broader issue within government institutions across the state, where officers lacked basic knowledge of the POSH Act, leading to systemic failures in addressing sexual harassment complaints. The court was particularly disturbed by the response to an RTI application, where a District Industrial Centre wrongly directed trade unions to form internal complaints committees, demonstrating a lack of understanding of the law.

The court also acknowledged the overburdened nature of the Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department, which handles women’s welfare, child welfare, and POSH Act implementation. It suggested the feasibility of creating a separate department for Women Empowerment to address these critical issues more effectively.

Court’s Decision

In a comprehensive 139-page judgment, the court issued several significant directions to address the lapses:

State Government Directives: The court instructed the State of Tamil Nadu to frame and publish rules for the effective implementation of the POSH Act. The State Women’s Commission was ordered to submit a draft of the proposed rules to the State Government within two weeks for scrutiny, approval, and publication.

Creation of an Online Dashboard: The government was directed to create an official website with a dashboard detailing the establishment and functioning of Internal Complaints Committees across various institutions. This platform would track the number of complaints, resolution status, and actions taken.

Awareness and Sensitization: The court mandated gender sensitization and awareness programs for government employees and suggested incorporating gender sensitivity modules into competitive exams for government jobs.

Feasibility Study: The court ordered a study on the feasibility of separating the Women Empowerment Department from the Social Welfare Department to improve the focus and efficiency of women’s welfare initiatives.

Funds Utilization: The government was directed to provide a detailed report on the funds allocated and spent on implementing the POSH Act. If funds were insufficient, the State was asked to outline steps to generate additional resources.

Gender Sensitivity Audits: The court proposed establishing gender sensitivity audit squads to inspect workplaces and mandate a gender sensitivity clearance certificate for businesses, schools, hospitals, industries, and other establishments as a condition for obtaining operational licenses.

Through these directions, the court emphasized the need for a systemic overhaul to ensure that institutions, especially those funded by public money, uphold gender equality and protect women from harassment in the workplace.