1. Is PIL maintainable?

It is most respectfully submitted by the counsel for appellant before this hon’ble court
that the decision of the decision of Delta HC in acquitting respondent under 354 IPC
and POSH act suffers from serious infirmities which leads to miscarriage of justice,
which is ex facie evident from the facts of the case. There are some basic tenets for
the maintainability of PIL.
1. There is a personal injury or injury to a disadvantaged section of the population for
whom access to legal justice system is difficult.
2. The person bringing the action has sufficient interest to maintain an action of public
injury.
3. The injury must have arisen because of breach of public duty or violation of the
Constitution or of the law, 

1.1 There is a personal injury or injury to a disadvantaged section of the

population for whom access to legal justice system is difficult.
The injury has been to as many as 30 women in the case and who could not present
their grievances to the appropriate authorities, as the respondent herein @ Romesh has
been a person in authority. Women who were subjected to sexual assault were lower
in power and could not report the matter due to the fear of being jobless. In the wake
of me too movement, when the other women raised the same issue the petitioner
herein realized the gravity of the issue as this has been a normal gesture of the
respondent.
In Sarkaria, J. in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed &
Ors. (1976 (1) SCC 671) expressed his view that the application of a busybody should
be rejected at the . threshold in the following terms: (SCC p. 683, para 37) "37. It will
be seen that in the context of locus standi to apply for a writ of certiorari, an applicant
may ordinarily fall in any of these categories : (i) 'person aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger';
(iii) busybody or meddlesome interloper. Herein, ms. Sehgal though stranger to the
case has filed the case as these women were socially disabled from filing the case.

1.2. The person bringing the action has sufficient interest to maintain an action
of public injury.
The activist is working for the people in the disadvantaged situations. The women
herein could not raise their voices against mr. romesh as he was a powerful man an
due to them being in the lower positions, it was difficult for those women due to the
fear of being fired from the company or being harmed in other ways. The activist
plays the role of representing these disadvantaged women.
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India. The court now permits Public
Interest Litigation or Social Interest Litigation at the instance of “Public spirited
citizens" for the enforcement of constitutional & legal rights of any person or group of
persons who because of their socially or economically disadvantaged position are
unable to approach court for relief. Public interest litigation is a part of the process of
participate justice and standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal
reception at the judicial door steps.
In the Judges Transfer Case - Court held Public Interest Litigation can be filed by any
member of public having sufficient interest for public injury arising from violation of
legal rights so as to get judicial redress. This is absolutely necessary for maintaining
Rule of law and accelerating the balance between law and justice. It is a settled law
that when a person approaches the court of equity in exercise of extraordinary
jurisdiction, he should approach the court not only with clean hands but with clean
mind, heart and with clean objectives.

1.3. The injury must have arisen because of breach of public duty or violation of
the Constitution or of the law.
The primary requirement for instituting a PIL is that the person must have suffered
some injury. As per the Oxford dictionary, the term injury means the violation of any
legal right or some other physical or monetary harm that occurred to any person. The
injury can occur from the act of private parties or the act of state. It is also important
to note that the injury may be actual or maybe anticipatory.  Further, the nature of the
injury can be economic or non-economic.
in the case of Janata Dal v. Chaudhary, 1992 defined the term  ‘Public Interest
Litigation’. As per the court, PIL means a legal action brought in the court of law on
behalf of those persons whose legal rights are violated and they can’t approach the
court due to their economic or socially disadvantageous position.
As per the facts of the case, the rights of the petitioner have been violated. She was
sexually harassed the respondent. The comments made on the part of the respondent
towards the petitioner were sexually coloured. Also, there was a large section of
women who were harassed by the same person. Thus, there is a clear violation of
rights of these women wherein they were not only harassed but were also living in
suppression after such harassment.
The Supreme Court has recently liberalized the Locus Standi clause. The Court now
allows public-spirited individuals to file a writ petition for the protection of every
other person’s or class’s constitutional and statutory rights, even though that person or
class is unable to claim the High Court’s jurisdiction due to poverty or any other
social economic impairment. Thus, herein it is humbly submitted that the petition
filed by ms. Sheghal is maintainable as she is a gender activist and filed the petition
with clean hands for the common good of sically disadvantaged women.
ISSUE 2: whether Romesh is liable under the provisions of IPC and SHW(Sexual
Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013)
2.1 section 473 crpc
Before going into the merits, I submit that this petition should be admitted and is not
liable to be dismissed as per section 473 of Code of criminal procedure, 1973. (CrPC)
The section 473 of CrPC says
“Extension of period of limitation in certain cases:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any
Court may make cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitations,
if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has
been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.”
The Delta HC previously dismissed the case stating that appellate jurisdiction is not
permissible after express time limitation in Protection of women from sexual
harassment. But as regards the section 354 IPC, the case can be maintained. The
section 473 clearly states that there can be extension of period of limitation in certain
cases, if the court is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Looking at the facts, the petitioner was the victim of bad conduct on the part of
respondent on various occasions. Firstly, On new years eve in 2018, a party was
organised by the firm. At the party, suddenly, Romesh(respondent) came towards
Rashika(petitioner) and planted a kiss on her cheeks. We live in a country like India
where we all follow some ethics and morals. This behaviour of giving a kiss on her
cheeks is certainly uncalled for behaviour on the part of the respondent. In any kind of
organisation, such physical contact by the boss towards his/ her employee is certainly
in not seen in good light by standards.
Secondly, He took out a gift pack his handbag and offered the same to Rashika
stating, “I am giving you a small Tajmahal statue as a new year gift. Please accept it.”
Rashika saw the gift pack and read inscription on it: “Tajmahal presented by
Shahjahan (Romesh) to Mumtaj (Rashika)with lots of love.” I submit that here is gift
is not a mere gifting transaction between the employer and the employee. Rather, it is
coloured with a sexual remark wherein he implies that the petitioner stands at a
footing of his lover on the gift. The inscription on it made it well known to all the
other standing beside them in the party that they do not share only employer and
employee relationship. However, there was no such intention from the side of the
petitioner thus, she did not accept the gift. As commonly understood, accepting of
such gift would have amounted accepting such relation between them. She was very
clear of her relations the respondent and thus, she is straightaway refused to accept the
same.
After this incident the respondent was clearly infuriated and as per the facts he left the
party as he could not stand the embarrassment of rejection of his proposal. Also, he
was so infuriated that she was shifted to a different vertical of the organisation. Here it
is very apparent that when his advances were not accepted by the petitioner. He used
his position of authority to suppress her. There has been no such incident of she being
held up with the bad situation before the incident. Any prudent person would feel that
such action is not solely professional but is coloured by the respondent. The
respondent is editor of the magazine and all such shifts are not done without his
approval.
When the petitioner took the matter to the ICC, the inquiry concluded that he was not
guilty of any sexual misconduct. She then left the organisation in 2021. Then, in2022
after the petition in delta HC was filed, which was dismissed. The judgment gathered
a lot of media attention and many women (around 30) came forward with their own
sexual harassment stories against Romesh during their stint with Vocals in social
media. This shows that these women were suppressed and could voice their
grievances against the respondent due to his position of power.

2.2
A. sexual harassment under Sexual harassment at workplace act and IPC
The definition of sexual harassment as given in the sexual harassment at workplace
act is as follows: section 2 (n)
(n) “sexual harassment” includes any one or more of the following unwelcome acts or
behavior (whether directly or by implication) namely:—
(i) physical contact and advances; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) making sexually coloured remarks; or
(iv) showing pornography; or
(v) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual
nature;
The respondent at the party planted a kiss on the cheeks on her employee. This
conduct on behalf of the respondent was uncalled for. It was sudden and she did not
consent for such conduct on his part. Also, giving a gift with an implication wherein
he calls himself to her lover clearly made the whole conduct a sexual one. Both of his
acts kissing and gifting the gift with such inscription can be read as sexually coloured
remarks with a physical contact. After applying the law with the facts in hand, it can
be seem that there is prime facie sexual harassment on the part of the respondent.
B. SECTION 354 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1973
Section 354A of IPC, 1973 states
354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment--(1) Aman
committing any of the following acts--
(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual
overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual
harassment.
(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause
(iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
one year, or with fine, or with both.
The incident on the eve of 2018, romesh planted a kiss on the cheek of petitioner
which very well fulfils the ingredient of physical contact under the definition.

Also, during the incident he gave a gift with inscription on it ,“Tajmahal presented by
Shahjahan (Romesh) to Mumtaj (Rashika)with lots of love.” Herein, this shows his
intention of the respondent towards the petitioner. the respondent is a married man
with two kids and then giving such gifts to other women certainly shows bad conduct
and his ill intentions towards his employees.
In the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K Chopra, the Supreme
Court upheld the dismissal of a superior officer of the Delhi based Apparel Export
Promotion Council who was found guilty of sexually harassing a subordinate female
employee at the workplace. Supreme Court enlarged the definition of sexual
harassment by ruling that physical contact was not essential for it to amount to an act
of sexual harassment. The Supreme Court explained that “sexual harassment is a
form of sex discrimination projected through unwelcome sexual advances, request for
sexual favours and other verbal or physical conduct with sexual overtones, whether
directly or by implication, particularly when submission to or rejection of such
conduct by the female employee was capable of being used for affecting the
employment of the female employee and unreasonably interfering with her work
performance and had the effect of creating an intimidating or hostile work
environment for her.”
The case Mrs. Rupan Deol bajaj v. Kanwar pal singh Gill, has changed the meaning
of the terms, modesty and privacy in such a way that, any kind of harassment or
inconvenience done to a women’s private or public life will be considered as an
offence.
There was a guideline given by SC in the case “vishakha v. state of rajasthan” it is
the duty of every employer to deliver a sense of security to every women employee.
Coming to the case in hand, it can be seen that the respondent/s conduct of making
such advances is a proof of his behaviour and his intentions towards his employees.
Thus, it can be said that the essential elements of sexual harassment at workplace and
section 354A Indian penal code can be fulfilled looking at the acts of the respondent.
Interpreting the laws and after application of the facts to the same. It is clear that the
respondent is liable under section 354A Indian penal code and sexual harassment at
workplace act and should be punished accordingly.