8/12/2019 Crime by Another Name (DONE)

1/1

november 30, 2013

Economic & PoliticalWeekly EPW november 30, 2013 vol xlviII no 48 7

Crime by Another Name

The casual acceptance of sexual harassment at the workplace must end.

The silence surrounding an everyday crime appears finally

to be breaking. Beginning with the complaint by a law intern

against a retired Supreme Court (SC) judge earlier this

month and the most recent complaint by a woman journalist against

her editor, many other women are now speaking up about sexual

harassment at the workplace. Yet the few that have been reported

represent but a sliver of the totality, one that millions of working

women of all classes confront and negotiate almost on a daily basis.

Despite the SCpassing the Vishaka guidelines in 1997, which

laid down clear definitions of what constituted sexual harassment

as well as the redressal system that had to be put in place within

all institutions, this is a crime that remains largely unaddressed.

That it is a crime requires no discussion. When women are

compelled to tolerate sexual innuendoes, unwanted attention

and physical contact, and even sexual assault in some instances,

and all this in a place where they are hired for their professionalskills, it is a form of sexual violence. It assaults not just their

physical being but also their sense of self. Given unequal power

equations, generally women cannot, and indeed do not, speak

up when such harassment occurs. When they do, there is no

redressal mechanism. As a result, it becomes their word

against the perpetrator of the crime. The record shows that it is

women who lose, either because there is no way to establish

the crime as there are no witnesses or because the process of

proving it becomes so traumatic that they are compelled to

withdraw the complaint or leave the organisation.

The Vishaka guidelines were formulated precisely to deal with

such crimes. They also formed the basis of the Sexual Harassment

at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,

2013 passed in April this year. Under this law, it is mandatory for

institutions employing women to set up an Internal Complaints

Committee comprising representatives of the employer, the

employees and someone from outside the institution. It is also

mandated that half the members should be women.

Yet, despite the earlier guidelines and the law, we know now that

even the SCdoes not have such an Internal Complaints Committee.

In the recent case involving a retired SCjudge and a legal intern,

the apex court has set up a three-member committee consisting

only of judges, without an outsider. How can the institution thatensures implementation of laws ignore provisions of the law it

put in place through the Vishaka guidelines? Surely institutions

like the judiciary should be setting an example rather than skirt-

ing around the provisions of the law.

Then take the media. It has been hyperactive in exposing the

shortcomings of all the major institutions in this country includ-

ing the armed forces. Yet, it is evident that media houses have

failed to put in place the mechanisms of redressal for sexual

harassment. In recent years, there have been several cases

where women journalists have charged their superiors of such

harassment. Yet, barring one, where the woman fought a

10-year-long legal battle and eventually won, none of the other

cases have had a fair chance of redressal.

The most recent case involving Tehelka, a weekly magazine

that has made a name for itself through its courageous exposs and

investigative journalism, is particularly shameful. For such a media

house to deal with the accusation by one of their staff of sexual

assault by the editor by accepting the latters offer to recusehimself from his editorial responsibilities, makes a mockery of

the law. The magazine does not as yet have an Internal Complaints

Committee as required by the law. Instead of first holding an

independent inquiry, the editor sent an email seeking atonement

and the managing editor accepted this and an apology as ade-

quate for an untoward incident. Surely, this sets a most unfor-

tunate precedent apart from violating provisions in the law.

The details of the two most recent cases of sexual harassment

that have come to light are not as important as what they reveal

about the casual attitude of all institutions, including the courts,

the legal profession and the media, towards a crime against women.

Given the year-long discussion on violence against women, trig-

gered by the 16 December 2012 gang rape and death of a 23-year-

old woman in Delhi, it is all the more reprehensible that institutions

that should set an example are themselves found wanting.

Now that the crime of sexual harassment cannot be pushed

under the carpet anymore, it is imperative that the law is

followed up by a survey that establishes whether institutions

(including courts and media houses) that are required to set up

internal inquiry committees have done so or not. There is also

a need to continue educating women, and men, about what

constitutes sexual harassment as defined in the law. Such

awareness, alongside institutional mechanisms for redressal,will go some way in ensuring that women do not have to suffer in

silence, even if it does not make sexual harassment disappear.