The Supreme Court recently rejected a plea seeking directions for protection of witnesses and complainants in cases of sexual harassment at the workplace..In its order passed in January this year, a Bench of Justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna rejected a petition filed by one Sunita Thawani, who challenged Delhi High Court's rejection of her PIL..In her PIL, Thawani had sought to highlight the absence of provisions in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 to protect complainants and witnesses from retaliation or victimization by the accused or by the organization..She had thus filed a PIL before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction for an amendment to the Act to add the necessary provisions, or for the Court to lay down guidelines or directions on the same. This PIL was rejected by the High Court, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court..The Apex Court was also not inclined to entertain this plea. It therefore rejected the same, while granting liberty to the petitioner to "work out her remedy".."We are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy in accordance with law including by making representation before the concerned authorities."Supreme Court .[Read Order]
The Supreme Court recently rejected a plea seeking directions for protection of witnesses and complainants in cases of sexual harassment at the workplace..In its order passed in January this year, a Bench of Justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna rejected a petition filed by one Sunita Thawani, who challenged Delhi High Court's rejection of her PIL..In her PIL, Thawani had sought to highlight the absence of provisions in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013 to protect complainants and witnesses from retaliation or victimization by the accused or by the organization..She had thus filed a PIL before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction for an amendment to the Act to add the necessary provisions, or for the Court to lay down guidelines or directions on the same. This PIL was rejected by the High Court, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court..The Apex Court was also not inclined to entertain this plea. It therefore rejected the same, while granting liberty to the petitioner to "work out her remedy".."We are not inclined to entertain the special leave petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedy in accordance with law including by making representation before the concerned authorities."Supreme Court .[Read Order]
