On Friday, the Supreme Court ordered the central government, each state government, and the union territories (UTs) to confirm that all relevant departments, ministries, government agencies, public sector businesses, institutions, etc. are in fact in compliance.
The Supreme Court emphasised that despite the passage of so much time, it is alarming to see that the 2013 Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act continues to be poorly enforced.
The 2013 Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act will remain an useless formality, according to a bench made up of justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli. This is because the workplace atmosphere will continue to be hostile, insensitive, and indifferent to the requirements of female employees.
“If the authorities/managements/employers cannot assure them a safe and secure work place, they will fear stepping out of their homes to make a dignified living and exploit their talent and skills to the hilt. It is, therefore, time for the Union government and the state governments to take affirmative action and make sure that the altruistic object behind enacting the PoSH Act is achieved in real terms,” said Justice Kohli.
The top court emphasised that no matter how positive this law may be, it will not succeed in giving women the respect and dignity they deserve at work unless and until all state and non-state actors strictly adhere to the enforcement system.
The court ruled that it is the responsibility of every state employee, public official, private enterprise, organisation, and institution to carry with the PoSH Act in letter and spirit.
“Being a victim of such a deplorable act not only dents the self-esteem of a woman, it also takes a toll on her emotional, mental and physical health. It is often seen that when women face sexual harassment at the workplace, they are reluctant to report such misconduct. Many of them even drop out from their job. One of the reasons for this reluctance to report is that there is an uncertainty about who to approach under the Act for redressal of their grievance,” said the bench.
