The Posh Act And The Balance Of Confidentiality: Insights From The Praveen Bhatt Case Legal
Judgement Given On : 09/01/2020
Context and background
In the legal saga of Praveen Bhatt v/s Union of India and Ors, The Dharwad bench of Karnataka high court, issued a landmark judgment on January 9, 2020. This case delved into a critical aspect of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“PoSH Act”). It shed light on the interpretation of Section 16 of the Act, highlighting that its scope primarily pertains to restricting the dissemination of certain information during proceedings, rather than impeding the consideration of such material in judicial investigations when the need arises.
The petitioner, Praveen Bhatt, sought a comprehensive review of his Annual Confidential Reports (AR) spanning from 2008 to 2017. Additionally, he challenged the proceedings of the Selection Board concerning his promotion. The crux of his argument rested on the references made in the order with regard to proceedings initiated under the PoSH Act.
A sexual harassment complaint had been lodged against Mr. Bhatt by a stenographer, which was subsequently resolved through conciliation. This resolution resulted in an apology from Mr. Bhatt and a two-year ‘censure,’ which expired on February 3, 2015. Notably, the Special Promotion Board proceedings occurred on January 3, 2018, well after the censure had lapsed. Furthermore, there was no mention of any misconduct by Mr. Bhatt in the AR of 2014 or in any subsequent reports.
Mr. Bhatt invoked Section 16 of the PoSH Act, which specifically addresses the prohibition of publishing or disclosing certain details of complaints and inquiry proceedings. Further, Mr. Bhatt contended that the references to these proceedings in the order violated Section 16 of the PoSH Act. His argument revolved around the assertion that these references breached the provisions of this section.
Court’s Ruling
The court determined that Mr. Bhatt’s arguments were unwarranted and subsequently dismissed his requests for the revision of the AR and the Special Promotion Board’s proceedings.
In addressing Mr. Bhatt’s contentions concerning Section 16 of the PoSH Act, the court clarified that the references made in the order did not delve into the merits of the complaint, nor did they disclose its contents, identities, or specific particulars. Instead, these references merely encompassed the averments found in the pleadings and the actions taken subsequent to the Internal Complaints Committee’s proceedings. The court emphasized that these references did not carry adverse implications or derogatory connotations towards Mr. Bhatt. They were regarded as integral components of the available material on record, warranting no reason for their removal from the order.
Furthermore, the court elucidated that Section 16 of the PoSH Act governs the manner in which complaints received under the Act should be handled, including the conduct of inquiries. It underscored that within the scope of Section 16, while it prohibits the public disclosure of specific information, it does not inhibit the consideration of such material within the legal framework during a judicial inquiry when deemed necessary.
The Praveen Bhatt case provides valuable insights into the interpretation of Section 16 of the PoSH Act. It underscores that Section 16 predominantly focuses on restricting the public dissemination of material information, particularly through the press or media, during ongoing proceedings. Importantly, it does not impede the consideration of such material in judicial inquiries when such scrutiny is essential. This case underscores the significance of maintaining confidentiality while upholding the PoSH Act’s provisions, ensuring that sensitive information remains shielded from public scrutiny during proceedings.