Sexual Harassment Case In The Indian Air Force: Jammu And Kashmir High Court

Judgement Given On : 27/04/2021

Background

In a recent legal development that has garnered attention, an Indian Air Force (IAF) woman pilot has filed a petition before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, alleging sexual harassment by her flight commander. This case has raised critical legal issues, particularly concerning the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), as well as procedural matters. This article provides an in-depth legal analysis of the case, focusing on significant aspects and their legal implications.

The petitioner, a Senior Professor of English in the IAF, was stationed at Government J.P. Verma P.G. Arts and Commerce College, Bilaspur. The crux of her complaint revolves around allegations of misconduct perpetrated by an Assistant Professor in English, who was posted at Government College, Akaltara. These allegations encompass the use of derogatory language, inappropriate comments, and unwarranted physical contact.

Allegations of Sexual Harassment

The petitioner’s complaint alleges that the accused flight commander not only subjected her to objectionable comments but also persistently demanded sexual favors. This included inappropriate physical contact, which created an environment of discomfort and violation. One particularly egregious comment by the accused is highlighted in the petition.

Shortcomings in ICC Proceedings

The petitioner has raised legitimate concerns about the procedural aspects of the case, specifically pertaining to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) proceedings. Several pertinent legal issues emerge:

  1. Extensive Cross-Examination: The petitioner was subjected to an extensive and exhaustive cross-examination, encompassing approximately 300 questions. This protracted process transformed the inquiry into a quasi-adjudicatory proceeding, diverging from the intended purpose of a summary fact-finding inquiry.
  2. Asymmetrical Cross-Examination: The petitioner and her witnesses underwent cross-examination, while the accused and his witnesses remained exempt from similar scrutiny. This marked asymmetry raises valid concerns about procedural fairness.
  3. Inconsistent ICC Composition: The composition of the ICC appeared to fluctuate without clear justifications, giving rise to concerns about procedural consistency and impartiality.

Legal Issues Raised

The case brings forth several significant legal issues that warrant examination:

  1. Common Employer Doctrine: The contention that both the petitioner and the accused were government employees, thus sharing a common employer, underscores the applicability of workplace harassment regulations.
  2. Responsibility of Authorities: The government authorities, responsible for addressing such complaints, seemingly failed in their duty by not promptly forwarding the complaint to the police for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).
  3. Constitutional Violation: The petitioner contends that the Air Force Order (AFO) governing ICC proceedings infringes upon Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, as it curtails her right to cross-examine the accused and his witnesses.

Relief Sought

In light of the procedural challenges encountered during ICC proceedings, the petitioner seeks the following legal remedies:

  1. A direction from the court for the ICC to conduct a fair and impartial inquiry in accordance with established legal norms.
  2. A request for the transfer of the accused to avert further harassment and intimidation of the petitioner and other witnesses.

Conclusion

This case underscores the paramount importance of addressing workplace sexual harassment through a comprehensive legal framework, as exemplified by the POSH Act. Furthermore, it highlights the significance of procedural integrity and adherence to principles of natural justice. As the case unfolds, it serves as a poignant reminder of the indispensable role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights and dignity of individuals involved in such contentious matters.