A learned student, Dhruv Desai, 4th year law, Symbiosis Society's law college, Pune in one of his article available in Legal service India, has written that, “Sexual harassment and rape are two sides of the same coin. Both showcase the power of man to dominate that of women.” It is respectfully submitted that such a statement is partially wrong, though it may be justified in rape cases as there, only the man lies under the sword, but in sexual harassment at workplaces not only effect women but also men. Thus this statement made by her is not convincing. Well! Moving towards our main discussion, the author will try to give a brief out all the recommendation in the Oxford Pro Bono Publico (OPBP), report submitted to the Rajya Sabha Committee scrutinising the Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill 2010. The main aim was to illustrate changes in the definition of sexual harassment and to the mechanism for remedies available in the bill. The said work has made 5 recommendations out of which some seems to be proper while the other is hard for the author to accept.
The first recommendation is that An ‘Explanation’ should be introduced in s 1(m) of the bill to clarify the ‘unwelcome’ nature of the sexually determined behaviour as follows: ‘Explanation: Whether the sexually determined behaviour is unwelcome or not shall be judged prima facie from the perspective of the aggrieved woman.
This seems to be a little unjust provision, though the said Act, which is now in the stage of bill, if contain this provision then it will not only act as a shield but also a weapon. This recommendation seems to be very appealing but the social circumstances should also be seen. India is a country with huge diversity, and any person cannot ascertain what conduct is sexual in nature for different class of women. Thus a reasonable ground should be constructed as to make a common platform for a sexual act.
Another recommendation it makes is that the result or effect should be seen instead of intend or motive. This also seems to be non-convincing recommendation as form the day 1 in a law school it is taught that parties’ intend is seen, this goes against the principles of criminal jurisprudence.
The third recommendation made by the report is, “Prohibiting Punishment for Women making a ‘False’ or ‘Malicious’. This recommendation is made on to amend S. 14 of the bill, which permits action to be taken against a woman who has made a ‘false’ or ‘malicious’ complaint should be deleted. The primary reason given by the report is that acts of sexual harassment are often conducted in an implicit or clandestine manner, concealed in vague words of actions pregnant with covert meaning. It is difficult to prove such acts beyond reasonable doubt as may be possible with physical injury or other crimes. To label a charge with no proof as weak, or as bogus or fake, is insulting to the victim.
This seems to be the least convincing argument; the view drawn by this report is for the victim and not the person who is charged for it. His days and nights are spend without his right to liberty of thoughts because the only thing in his mind is the claim made on him, and if it turns to be incorrect, then the lady should be punished so as to limit the wrongful advantage taken by the women under this act.
The third recommendation: Making the Bill Gender-Neutral and Introducing a Dignity Element seems to be the most proper one. “The title of the bill should simply read Protection against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010. All references to ‘woman/women’ should be replaced by ‘person/persons’, except for those provisions of the bill stipulating a proportion of women on the Internal and Local complaints committees. This is one of the recommendations which seem to be the most convincing one.
The other two recommendation are also made, the interested blogger may read by doing a Google search on this topic, so that that they can post their comment.
Yours Sincerely,
Mr. Unknown.
Good post. The recommendations made me positively ill. They are so one sided and deliberately intended to be easy to use against men. If the generalization is that men are abusive, then the contrary generalization would have to be that women are manipulative. The law must guard against both.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your views.....
ReplyDelete