In Ak Chopra vs Union of India

The supreme court gave a broader interpretation to the term “molestation”

and also opined that physical contact is not the sole indicator to deal the
sexual harassment cases. The apex court held that the respondent’s action was
notwithstanding the decency and modesty, hence it amounted to “Sexual
Harassment”.

The apex court also held that the High court had overlooked the fact that, in
departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority (enquiry officer) and the
case of appeal, the appellate authority (staff committee) can be the sole judge
to re-appreciate the evidence as they are the fact-finding authorities. So, in
this case, the High court did not have the authority to interfere with the
quantum of the punishment. 
Hence, the apex court set aside the order of the High Court and upheld the
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Departmental
Appellate Authority of removal of the respondent from service.

The first issue of the case was that whether the High court has the power to
interfere with the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate
authority when there was no evidence that the findings of the enquiry officer
and the appellate authority were faulty, arbitrary or perverse. The apex court
after observing various precedents like “B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India[4]”, “Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur[5]” etc. came to the conclusion
that the interference of the High Court regarding the findings of the
departmental authority and the punishment imposed was erroneous.

The second issue was whether “Physical contact” is the essential element for
the cases of sexual harassment or not. Here the High court made a narrow
interpretation of the term “Sexual Harassment” and used the dictionary
meaning of the terms “molestation” and “physical assault” while stating that
the respondent had not “actually molested” Miss X, he had only “tried to
molest” her and had “not managed” to make physical contact with her. 
I disagree with such an absurd judgement given by the High Court. Such
misinterpretation would set bad example in front of society, defame the nation
and also will degrade women empowerment. No law in India defines
“touching” or “physical contact” and this uncertainty led to the
misinterpretation. If this kind of interpretation would be allowed, then many
perpetrators would be able to escape with the help of this ambiguity.

Arguments related to Non-Disclosure Agreement

It is widely known that trade secrets or confidential information do not receive

statutory protection in India, and the same are typically protected
contractually vide non-disclosure agreements (“NDA”) and/or secrecy clauses
embedded within a master agreement.

Seo Jun was having at least 3 months time before starting the job with the
corporation, she should have objected at that time only when she was having
any doubt or was not agreed on any point in the agreement.

Issue2(corporation side) - will have to ask this sir

Posh act came place in 2013 but the ICC in company was there from 2018

Cases where Alternate remedy was there but still if fundamental right is
breached we can come to court

Whirlpool corporation v. Registrar of trade Marks (AIR 1999 SC 22)

Himmat Lal V. State of Madhya Pradesh (Air 1954 SC 403)
Union of India v. T.R. Verma