LANDMARK AND

RECENT
JUDGMENTS OF
POCSO ACT
 Name of the Case Guidelines
1. Vishakha vs. State of This is a landmark judgment that led to the enactment of the POSH Act. The Supreme Court
Rajasthan held that sexual harassment at the workplace violates a woman’s fundamental right to
equality and right to life and liberty
2. Apparel Export This case established that employers are liable for sexual harassment by their employees, and
Promotion Council vs. A.K. that they must take proactive steps to prevent and address sexual harassment in the
Chopra workplace
3. The Internal Complaints In this case, the Bombay High Court held that an employer must provide a safe working
Committee of Tata environment, free from sexual harassment, and that the employer is responsible for ensuring
Consultancy Services vs. that the Internal Complaints Committee is constituted and functions effectively.
Tanuja Priya Bhat
4. Poornima Advani vs. This case Supreme Court held that the POSH Act applies to government organizations, and
Union of India that the government must ensure that all its offices and workplaces have Internal Complaints
Committees in place to address complaints of sexual harassment.
5. Sanchayani Sharma vs. In this case, the Delhi High Court held that sexual harassment need not be physical in nature
National Insurance and can also include verbal or non-verbal conduct, such as unwelcome advances, comments
Company Ltd or gestures
6. Madhu vs. State of In this case, the Supreme Court held that sexual harassment need not be proved beyond
Kerala reasonable doubt and can be established on the basis of a preponderance of probabilities
 Name of the Case Guidelines
7. Anjali Bhardwaj This case dealt with the issue of sexual harassment of women in
vs. Union of India government departments and held that all government departments
must set up Internal Complaints Committees to address complaints of
sexual harassment.
8. ICICI Bank vs. This case held that employers cannot absolve themselves of liability
Vinod Kumar for sexual harassment by claiming that the perpetrator was not an
employee of the organization but a third party or a contractor.
9. Kamaljeet Kaur vs. In this case, the Delhi High Court held that the employer must ensure
Punjab and Sind that the Internal Complaints Committee is constituted and functions
Bank effectively, failing which it may be held liable for negligence.
10. Vinita Srivastava This case emphasized the need for employers to adopt a zero-
vs. Sahara India Real tolerance policy towards sexual harassment at the workplace and take
Estate Corporation effective steps to prevent and address such incidents.
Ltd
Name of the Case Guidelines
11. Aureliano Fernandes Concern – to fulfil the promise that the POSH Act holds out to working women all over the
Vs. State of Goa and country
Others(Civil Appeal No. (a) The Union of India, the State Governments and Union Territories must undertake a time bound exercise
2482 of 2014) to verify whether all the concerned ministries, departments, government organisations, authorities,
public sector undertakings, institutions, bodies, etc., have constituted LCs (local committees)/ ICs
(internal committees), as the case may be, and that the composition of the said committees are strictly
in terms of the provisions of the POSH Act.

(b) Ensure that necessary information regarding the constitution and composition of LCs/ ICs, details
including e-mail IDs and contact numbers of the designated person(s), the procedure prescribed for
submitting an online complaint, as also the relevant rules, regulations and internal policies are made readily
available on the website of the concerned authority/ functionary/ organisation/ institution/ body, as the
case may be. The information furnished shall also be updated from time to time.

(c) Immediate and effective steps to be taken by the authorities/ managements/ employers to familiarise
members of the LCs/ ICs with their duties and the manner in which an inquiry ought to be conducted on
receiving a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace, from the point when the complaint is received,
till the inquiry is finally concluded and the report is submitted.

(d) The authorities/ management/ employers must regularly conduct orientation programmes, workshops,
seminars and awareness programmes to upskill members of LCs/ ICs and to educate women employees and
women’s groups about the provisions of the POSH Act, the rules and relevant regulations.
Name of the Case Guidelines
12. Medha Kotwal Lele Concern – challenging the constitutionality of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
& Ors. V. Union of India (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act).
& Ors., 2018
Supreme Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments, holding that the PoSH Act was constitutional
and that it provided sufficient protections to women against sexual harassment at the
workplace. The Court further held that the Act was in line with India’s international obligations
under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW).
13. Tuka Ram And Anr vs Concern - What is Effect of Non-mentioning of Date of Crime ?
State of Maharashtra, The Mathura case is significant because it established the principle that a woman’s consent to
AIR 1979 SC 185 sexual intercourse must be obtained through clear and voluntary communication, and that the
(Mathura Case) absence of physical resistance does not necessarily indicate consent. The case remains an
important precedent in the fight against sexual violence and other forms of gender-based
violence in India.
14. State of Maharashtra The Mardikar case is significant because it established the principle that the police have a duty to
vs. Madhukar Narayan protect the rights of individuals in their custody, and that they are liable for any violations of
Mardikar, AIR 1991 SC those rights. The case remains an important precedent in the fight against sexual violence and
207 other forms of abuse of power in India.
Name of the Case Guidelines
15. Independent The Supreme Court of India interpreted the Exception-2 of Section 375 in harmony with main
Thought vs. Union of provision. The Apex Court for the first time recognised marital rape and declared that within
India and Anr. (AIR 2017 marriage also sexual intercourse with a wife of age between 15 to 18years will constitute an
SC 4904) offence of rape.
16. Shanta Kumar v. The Court implied that as long as a physical touch or approach is made in the course of sexually
Council of Scientific and suggestive behaviour, it constitutes sexual harassment. Even if unwanted, a simple incidental
Industrial Research touch would not constitute sexual harassment. Even if the occurrence in question was
(CDIR) & Ors, Delhi High derogatory in nature, it would not meet the criteria for sexual harassment in this case.
Court ((2018) 156 FLR
719)
17. Ruchika Singh Concern - A survey by the Indian National Bar Association reveals that most companies do not
Chhabra v. Air France follow the Vishaka Guidelines. – Delhi High Court
India and Anr. (2018 SCC
Online Del 9340) Unlike isolated instances of individual indiscipline, which are dealt with on a regular basis,
employers have a main responsibility to see that these laws and regulations, intended to provide
a safe workplace for their female employees, are implemented. An employer's unwillingness or
incapacity to provide such safety and equality at the workplace is implied by a permissiveness or
infringement in execution in one instance.
Name of the Case Guidelines
18. Avinash Mishra v Natural justice holds that the right to cross-examine witnesses is an essential component, thus
Union of India (Delhi the petitioner argued that the Committee's method failed to provide him with this fundamental
High Court, 2014 (215) right. violating the Constitution's Article 14 in the process.
DLT 714)
19. Saikuttan ON vs The High Court made it abundantly clear from the outset that the law regarding the transfer of
Kerala State Electricity employees is extremely clear and settled, and that a change in employment status is an incident
Board Ltd and Ors Bench of service. As a result, courts are not required to interfere with such transfer orders unless they
– High Court of Kerala at are made illegally or are made with malice.
Ernakulum Decision
dated – August 11, 2020
20. Malabika 1. A cursory glance at Section 2(m) of the 2013 Act shows that the term “respondent” brings
Bhattacharjee v. Internal within its fold “a person”, thereby including persons of all genders.
Complaints Committee, 2. There is nothing in Section 9 of the 2013 Act (on filing a complaint of sexual harassment) to
Vivekananda College and preclude a same-gender complaint under the Act.
Ors. 3. Although it might seem a bit odd at the first blush that people of the same gender complain of
sexual harassment against each other, it is not improbable, particularly in the context of the
dynamic mode which the Indian society is adopting currently, even debating the issue as to
whether same-gender marriages may be legalized.
Name of the Case Guidelines
20. Malabika 4. Definition of “sexual harassment” in Section 2(n) cannot be a static concept but has to be
Bhattacharjee v. Internal interpreted against the back-drop of the social perspective. Sexual harassment, as contemplated
Complaints Committee, in the 2013 Act, thus, has to pertain to the dignity of a person, which relates to her/his gender
Vivekananda College and and sexuality; which does not mean that any person of the same gender cannot hurt the
Ors. modesty or dignity as envisaged by the 2013 Act.
5. A person of any gender may feel threatened and sexually harassed when her/his modesty or
dignity as a member of the said gender is offended by any of the acts, as contemplated in Section
2(n), irrespective of the sexuality and gender of the perpetrator of the act.
6. Similarly, if Section 3 (2) is looked into, it is seen that the acts contemplated therein can be
perpetrated by the members of any gender, even inter se.
21. Prasad Pannian v. 1. Section 2 (n) is an inclusive definition and only a few unwelcoming acts or behaviour had been
The Central University of mentioned at sub-clauses (i) to (v). There might be other instances as well. Any such behaviour
Kerala and Ors. which is unwelcome could be either direct or indirect.
2. Sub-clauses (i) to (v) are only instances of unwelcome acts or behaviour, but while interpreting
a statute, we will have to derive the meaning of the word “sexual harassment” taking into
account sub-clauses (i) to (v) as well. Sub-clauses (i) to (v) are all illustrations. It is possible that
there might be other unwelcome acts or behaviour which would amount to a sexual advance or
demand which the woman feels to be annoyed on account of the fact that she is a woman.
3. But when an allegation of sexual harassment is made, though not coming within the
parameters as specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v), the act should have something to do with a
sexual advance either directly or by implication.
Name of the Case Guidelines
21. Prasad Pannian v. 4. Section 3 creates an absolute prohibition to subject a women to sexual harassment at
The Central University of workplace. The purport of Section 3(2) is that, if any of the eventualities mentioned under
Kerala and Ors. clauses (i) to (v) or any other circumstances occur, it should be in relation to or connected with
any act or behaviour of sexual harassment.
5. In order to constitute sexual harassment, definitely there should be an attempt on the part of
the wrongdoer to do some act which was unwelcome or by way of behaviour, either directly or
by implication makes the victim to feel that it amounts to sexual harassment.