MEDHA KOTWAL LELE AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 895 · Decided: 19-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 9 S.C.R. 895 
MEDHA KOTWAL LELE AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 173-177 of 1999 etc.) 
OCTOBER 19, 2012 
[R.M. LODHA, ANIL R. DAVE AND RANJAN GOGOl,JJ.] 
SEXUAL HARASSMENT: 
A 
B 
Sexual harassment of women at work places - 'Vishaka' 
C 
guidelines - Implementation of - Further directions given by 
Court to make amendments in service Rules and Industrial 
Employment (Standing Orders) Rules and to form adequate 
number of Complaints Committees at different levels - Report 
of complaints Committee to be treated as report in the o 
disciplinary proceedings by Inquiry Officer and such report to 
be acted upon accordingly - State functionaries, private and 
public sector organizations, Bar Council of India, State Bar 
Councils, Medical Council of India and all statutory 
institutions directed to ensure that Vishaka guidelines and the 
E 
directions issued by the Court subsequently and in the instant 
judgment are followed by all registered/affiliated bodies -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 141 - Public interest litigation. 
LEGISLATION: 
Secure environment for women - Held: Even after 15 
years of judgment in Vishaka, the statutory law is not in place 
F 
- The existing laws, if necessary, be revised and appropriate 
new laws be enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures to 
protect women from any form of indecency, indignity and G 
disrespect at all places to prevent all forms of violence i.e. 
domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual harassment at fhe 
workplace, etc. and provide new initiatives for education and 
advancement of women and girls in all spheres of life. 
895 
H 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
The instant group of matters were filed in the nature 
of public interest litigation highlighting individual cases 
of sexual harassment of women at work places and lack 
of effective implementation of 'Vishaka~ guidelines . The 
Court passed orders from time to time and issued notices 
B to all the State Governments. In view of the fact that even 
after several years of the judgment statutory law was not 
in place, the Court, on 26.4.2004, directed that the 
Complaints Committee as envisaged in Vishaka's case 
would be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the 
C purpose of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 
and the report of the Complaints Committee would be 
deemed to be an inquiry report, and the disciplinary 
authority would act on the report in accordance with the 
Rules. The Court further directed that similar amendments 
0 be carried out in the Industrial Employment (Standing 
Orders) Rules. On 17.1.2006, the Court directed the Chief 
Secretaries of the States to ensure appointment of a 
nodal agent to collect the details and to give suitable 
directions. The Labour Commissioner was directed to 
take steps to ensure that the directions were fully 
E complied with as regards factories, shops and 
commercial establishments. Details of the steps taken 
were directed to be furnished. The State Governments 
filed affidavits. 
F 
D!sposing of the matters, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From the affidavits filed by the State 
Governments, it transpires that some States have 
amended the Rules relating to duties, public rights and 
obligations of the government employees but have not 
G made amendments in Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. 
Similarly, some States/Union Territories have not carried 
out amendments in the Standing Orders. The said States/ 
Union Territories appear to have not implemented the 
H 1. 
Vishaka and Ors. vs. Stateof Rajasthan and Ors. 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404. 
MEDHA KOTWAL LELE v. UNION OF INDIA 
897 
order passed by this Court on 26.4.2004. The States 
A 
which have carried out amendments in the Civil Services 
(Conduct) Rules and the Standing Orders have not 
provided that the report of the Complaints Committee 
shall be treated as a report in the disciplinary proceedings 
by an Inquiry Officer. What has been provided by these 
B 
States is that the inquiry, findings and recommendations 
of the Complaints Committee shall be treated as a mere 
preliminary investigation leading to a disciplinary action 
against the delinquent. Further, some States and Union 
Territories seem to have not formed Complaints c 
Committees as envisaged in the Vishaka guidelines. 
Some States have constituted only one Complaints 
Committee for the entire State. [para 9-10] (914-B-G] 
Vishaka and Ors. vs. Stae of Rajasthan and Ors. 1997 
(3) Sup

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.