Important provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

[Act 14 of 2013 as amended up to Act 23 of 2016 and updated as of 30th April 2024]

An Act to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto

Whereas sexual harassment results in violation of the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and her right to life and to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business which includes a right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment;

And whereas the protection against sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity are universally recognised human rights by international conventions and instruments such as Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, which has been ratified on the 25th June, 1993 by the Government of India;

And whereas it is expedient to make provisions for giving effect to the said Convention for protection of women against sexual harassment at workplace;

Print Page

Can the court reject an application for the production of documents because documents are confidential?

The trial Court has upheld the contention of the defendant in respect of a simple plea that the letters are confidential letters and confidential letters cannot be produced and discovery in respect thereof cannot be granted. The trial Court has not assigned any cogent and or logical reason for upholding this bare plea. It must be borne in mind that the trial Court was conscious of the petitioner's plea that merely by labelling the letters in question as "Confidential Letters" the same cannot be excluded from the purview of Order 11, Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court was also aware that the petitioner had specifically contended that no specific or particular privilege in respect of the letters in question had been claimed by the defendant, and that there was no claim and or contention on the part of the defendant that disclosure would be prejudicial to public interest and or to national security and or' opposed to public policy and or detrimental to the interest of the defendant in any other manner. In fact there is no reason (for the confidentiality) disclosed by the defendant nor any explanation and or clarification offered in respect of the nature of confidential letters. {Para 5}

6. Under the circumstances it is clear that the bare plea that the letters are It is, therefore, obvious that the letters" cannot be upheld.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Civil Revn. Appln. No. 1254 of 1985

Decided On: 14.06.1991

 Kamalia Brothers and Co. Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Y.B. Bhatt, J.

Citation : AIR 1992 Guj 138, MANU/GJ/0147/1992

Print Page

When court should strike off mediation report?

Going by Rule 23 of the Rules, a mediator is not entitled to communicate to the court except in respect of the matters mentioned in the Rule. Sub clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause (a) of Rule 23 do not cause any difficulty for interpretation. What is the meaning of the words "getting advice on procedural matters with the consent of the parties" occurring in Sub clause (iii) of Clause (a) of Rule 23 is the question which arises for decision. Sri Joby Jacob Pulickekudy, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, submitted that the mediator has only sought the advice on procedural matters and therefore, the mediation report is legal and proper. A mediator can get advice on procedural matters only with the consent of parties. If the parties do not give consent, the mediator has no right to get advice on procedural matters. In the present case, the petitioner was not present at all before the mediator. She expressed her view that she was not participating in the mediation. The mediator, therefore, could communicate to the court only in the manner provided under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Rule 23 and submit a failure report. In the absence of parties, the mediator had no jurisdiction to seek the advice on procedural matters. One of the parties having expressed her reluctance to appear before the mediator, the mediator was not justified in arriving at "findings and conclusions" and thereafter seeking directions from the court. Even the directions sought for are not on procedural matters or to enable the mediator to carry on the mediation proceedings in a particular manner, but the directions are sought to be issued to the parties. The mediator was not justified in undertaking a video conferencing with some of the parties in the absence of commencement of mediation in accordance with law. No mediation at all took place. On the refusal of a party to appear before the mediator, there was no justification for the mediator to undertake an expedition with respect to the disputes between the parties. Conducting a video conferencing, in the absence of one of the parties, was also quite illegal. Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of Rule 22 of the Rules. Rule 22 provides that no mediator shall be held liable for anything bona fide done or omitted to be done by him during the mediation proceedings. The prayer made in the application is not to take any action against the mediator. No action is sought to be taken against the mediator. Immunity contemplated under Rule 22 does not take away the power of the court to say that the mediation report is not liable to be accepted or to strike off the mediation report or to hold that the mediator acted without jurisdiction. The very appointment of mediator by the court carries with it the power to cancel it also. If the mediator has misconducted himself or if the mediation report is otherwise illegal being contrary to the Rules, the court in which the proceedings are pending would have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders with regard to the acceptability or otherwise of the mediation report. Immunity under Rule 22 does not deter the court from doing so.

We are satisfied that the mediator travelled beyond his powers and the mediation report is liable to be struck off, except to the extent of communication that the mediation failed. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

W.P. (Crl.) No. 278 of 2012

Decided On: 06.07.2012

 Prabhavathy, K. Vs. Director General of Police and Others

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mr. Justice K.T. Sankaran and Mr. Justice M.L. Joseph Francis

Citation: ILR 2012(3) Kerala 922

Print Page

Guidelines of Supreme court regarding confidentiality in Mediation

 In this connection, we would like to state that mediation proceedings are totally confidential proceedings. This is unlike proceedings in Court which are conducted openly in the public gaze. If the mediation succeeds, then the mediator should send the agreement signed by both the parties to the Court without mentioning what transpired during the mediation proceedings. If the mediation is unsuccessful, then the mediator should only write one sentence in his report and send it to the Court stating that the 'Mediation has been unsuccessful'. Beyond that, the mediator should not write anything which was discussed, proposed or done during the mediation proceedings. This is because in mediation, very often, offers, counter offers and proposals are made by the parties but until and unless the parties reach to an agreement signed by them, it will not amount to any concluded contract. If the happenings in the mediation proceedings are disclosed, it will destroy the confidentiality of the mediation process.

3. We are compelled to observe this because the mediators should know what kind of reports they should send to the Courts. The report sent in this core should not have mentioned the proposals made by the parties, but should only have stated that the mediation was unsuccessful.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 1095 of 2008

Decided On: 07.12.2010

 Moti Ram  Vs.  Ashok Kumar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: 

Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.

Citation: (2011)1 SCC 466

Print Page

Whether agreement entered in mediation can be used as evidence in criminal case?

 Then, the question is whether the agreement entered into between the parties in a mediation can be treated as evidence in a criminal matter. It may be mentioned here, unless the agreement is accepted by the court and a decree is passed under Section 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure r/w O. 23 R. 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, that will have no effect, unless that has been converted into a conciliation agreement based on which an award is passed by the Conciliator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Further, it is the cardinal principle in the mediation that whatever transpired in the mediation cannot be disclosed even before the court of law and that cannot be called upon to be produced as evidence as well as it will affect the confidentiality of the things transpired in the process of mediation. So the party who did not honour the settlement which was effected in the process of mediation, then, is not entitled to use the same as evidence before the court and agreement also cannot be marked in evidence as it has no legal effect unless it is accepted by the court and a decree is passed under Section 89 r/w O. 23 R. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, That cannot be possible in a Criminal Court. Further even if the party had agreed to settle the matter for a lesser amount than the amount mentioned in the cheque in the mediation, it cannot be said that, that was the amount payable as in the mediation, parties can forgo so many things for the purpose of achieving harmony between the parties and restore their relationship. So the amounts arrived in a mediation also cannot be used as evidence for coming to the conclusion that the amount mentioned in the cheque is not the real amount due, and the complainant is not entitled to maintain the action on the basis of that cheque. The court has to allow the parties to adduce evidence ignoring the mediation agreement and dispose of the case on the basis of evidence adduced by parties as it should not be put in evidence in view of the bar under rules 20, 21 and 22 of the Civil Procedure (Alternative Disputes Resolution) Rules Kerala 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Crl. M.C. No. 1864 of 2014

Decided On: 10.07.2014

 Sreelal  Vs.  Murali Menon

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Ramakrishnan, J.

Print Page

Whether other party can be directed to produce income tax assessment orders in arbitration proceeding?

If we look at the words used in these two sections, they very clearly state that particulars contained in any return or statement made by a party, or document produced along therewith are confidential, and no court shall pass any order requiring the Government or a Government servant to produce any such statement, document or return. It is a settled principle of law that the words used in a statute are to be read as they are used, to the extent possible, to ascertain the meaning thereof. Both these provisions contained a bar only against the Government officers from producing the documents mentioned therein. There is no bar therein against a party to produce any such document. In Tulsiram Sanganaria and Anr. v. Srimati Anni Rai and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0443/1971 : 1971 (1) SCC 284, a bench of three Judges of this Court interpreted an identical provision in Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and held that the said provision created a bar on the production of the documents mentioned therein by the officials and other servants of the Income Tax Department, and made it obligatory on them to treat as confidential the records and documents mentioned therein, but the Assessee or his representative-in-interest could produce assessment orders as evidence, and such evidence was admissible. Thus, if a claim is to be decided on the basis of an order of assessment, the claimant as well cannot be denied the right to seek a direction to the party concerned to produce the assessment order. It is this very prayer which has been allowed by the earlier order dated 27.3.2007 passed by the then Arbitrator, and also by the subsequent order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, and in our view rightly so. There is no substance in the second objection as well.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8426 of 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28418/2012)

Decided On: 23.09.2013

 Delta Distilleries Limited Vs. United Spirits Limited and Anr.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Patnaik and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.

Print Page

Whether courts in India can grant interim relief even if place of Arbitration is outside India?

This is an application filed by the petitioner invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') seeking an interim measure before commencement of the arbitral proceedings. Initially, the registry has noted a defect with respect to the request made by the petitioner before this Court to secure an interim measure under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, especially as per the agreement, the place of arbitration is designated in Singapore. The said question was considered by this Court and passed an order dated 20.2.2017, after hearing rival parties, whereby it is held that, as provided under sub section (2) of Section 2 of the Act it is evident that, subject to an agreement to the contrary the provisions contained in Section 9 shall apply to international commercial arbitration, even if the place of arbitration is outside India, if an arbitral award made/to be made in such place is enforceable and recognized under provisions of Part II of Act, 1996. It is also found that the agreement specifically provides, the agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of India and shall be subject to the courts of Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala State and therefore, the application is maintainable before this Court under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, which has become final.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP(ICA) No. 1 of 2017

Decided On: 07.07.2017

 Female Health Company UK Plc.Vs. Hll Lifecare Limited

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.P. Chaly, J.

Citation:AIR 2017 Kerala 149

Print Page

Whether parties or arbitrator can rely on documents having genesis in conciliation proceeding?

 Sections 75 and 81 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read thus:

“75. Confidentiality.— Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the conciliator and the parties shall keep confidential all matters relating to the conciliation proceedings. Confidentiality shall extend also to the settlement agreement, except where its disclosure is necessary for purposes of implementation and enforcement.

81. Admissibility of evidence in other proceedings.— The parties shall not rely on or introduce as evidence in arbitral or judicial proceedings, whether or not such proceedings relate to the dispute that is the subject of the conciliation proceedings,—

(a) views expressed or suggestions made by the other party in respect of a possible settlement of the dispute;

(b) admissions made by the other party in the course of the conciliation proceedings;

(c) proposals made by the conciliator;

(d) the fact that the other party had indicated his willingness to accept a proposal for settlement made by the conciliator.”

6. On a reading of Section 75, it is clear that the object of the section is sub-served by the expression “relating to” which is an expression of extremely wide import. (See: Renusagar Power Company Limited v. General Electric Company, (1984) 4 SCC 679 at 704). It is clear, therefore, that both the conciliator and the parties must keep as confidential all matters relating to conciliation proceedings.

7. The litmus test for determining whether the matter relates to conciliation proceedings was laid down by an earlier judgment of this Court. In Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pearey Lal Kumar, [1952] S.C.R. 501, the question to be decided was as to whether a dispute or difference arose out of a certain insurance policy. This Court laid down that the test for determining whether a dispute or difference arose out of the said policy is whether recourse to the contract, by which the parties are bound, is necessary for the purpose of determining the matter in dispute between them. If it is found that such recourse is necessary, then the matter would certainly fall within the policy. Following this judgment, and applying it to the facts of this case, it is clear that recourse needs to be had to conciliation proceedings as the genesis of this demarcation report is only in conciliation proceedings and not otherwise.

8. This being the case, it is of no matter that the present case does not fall within the four pigeon holes contained in Section 81, as otherwise, if there are insidious encroachments on confidentiality, a free and fair settlement may never be arrived at, thus stultifying the object sought to be achieved by Part III of the 1996 Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Before R.F. Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.)

Govind Prasad Sharma & Ors. v. Doon Valley Officers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. 

Civil Appeal No. 10786 of 2017

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 9888 of 2015)

Decided on August 23, 2017

Citation:2017 SCC OnLine SC 1001,(2018) 11 SCC 501.

Print Page

Whether statement of victim recorded under S 164 of crpc should be kept confidential till filing of chargesheet?

(i) Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of rape, the Investigating Officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. A copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. should be handed over to the Investigating Officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. should not be disclosed to any person till charge sheet/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. is filed.

   REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON

                 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 5073/2011

State of Karnataka  V  Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna 

          

Dated: April 25, 2014

Print Page

Whether district court can be exempted to provide information in RTI if said information relates to confidentiality of any examination or selection process conducted by office of District Judge for appointment of ministerial staff?

 During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that they have the record but
claimed that as per Rule 7(iii) of Delhi District Courts (Right to Information) Rules,
2008, PIO may not provide the information to the applicant if the information relates
to the confidentiality of any examination or selection process conducted by the
office of the District Judge for the appointment of ministerial staff. He also added
that nearly 62,000 candidates appeared for the exam and it will pose huge burden
on them if copies were provided to each and every candidate.
In the present case the exemption taken by the PIO for denying the
information sought by the appellant is Rule 7 (iii) of Delhi District Courts (Right to
Information) Rules, 2008 which states as under :
 Exemption from disclosure of information: The Public Information Officer or
the Assistant Public Information Officer may not provide the information to the
applicant on the following grounds:…. (iii) The information relates to the
confidentiality of any examination or selection process conducted by the office of
the District Judge for the appointment of ministerial staff.
5. The Commission had in CIC/SG/A/2010/002021/9247 and in
CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/1147 with regard to Validity of exemptions contained in
District Court Rules visàvis
RTI Act had observed as follows:
“Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act lay down the grounds on the basis of which
information may be denied by the PIO. The District Court Rules have been made
by the High Court of Delhi (the “Delhi HC”) in exercise of its powers under
Section 28(1) of the RTI Act and notified in the New Delhi Gazette on May 6,
2009. Rules framed by a competent authority under Section 28(1) of the RTI Act
cannot go beyond the exemptions provided in Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The
Supreme Court of India as well as various High Courts have categorically held
that subordinate legislations or rules cannot go beyond the letter of the delegating
legislation.
In Addl. District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Admn. v Shri Siri Ram AIR 2000 SC
2143, the Supreme Court of India held:
“It is well recognized principle of interpretation of a statute that conferment of rule
making power by an Act does not enable the rule making authority to make rule
which travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or which is inconsistent
therewith or repugnant thereto.”
The RTI Act was enacted with the spirit of ensuring transparency and access to
information giving citizens the right to information. Hence, as observed by the Delhi

HC in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. S.C. Agarwal WP (C) No. 188/2009, the
RTI Act is premised on disclosure being the norm, and refusal, the exception.
According to the RTI Act, information may be exempted from disclosure in
accordance with Section 8 and 9 only and no other exemptions can be claimed
while rejecting a demand for disclosure.
The Delhi HC in Bhagat Singh v. CIC WP(C) No. 3114/2007 has held that
exemptions in the RTI should be strictly construed. It explained:
“Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions
under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental
right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in
manner as to shadow the very right itself.”
6. Hon’ble Information Commissioner Shri Shailesh Gandhi in
CIC/SG/A/2010/003545/11147 while dealing with Rule 7 made under Delhi District
Court Rules, 2008 had observed that:
“It must be noted that no public body is permitted under the RTI Act to take upon
itself the role of the legislature and import new exemptions hitherto not provided.
The District Court Rules made by the competent authority under the RTI Act
appears to bring in exemptions not provided for in the RTI Act and transgress the
exemptions envisaged by the Parliament under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.
Since the right to information is a fundamental right of the citizens, any move
which constricts it should be avoided. Even Parliament is very wary of the
restrictions it can place on the fundamental right of the citizen and hence

competent authorities would be well advised to ensure that they do not create any
exemptions which the lawmakers did not provide.”
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

CIC/AD/A/2013/001720SA
Appellant : Vipin Kumar
Respondent : Tis Hazari Court

Date of decision : 22.8.2014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)

Print Page

Right to privacy includes that bank should maintain confidentiality in respect of documents in its custody

Right to privacy deals with 'persons and not places', the documents or copies of documents of the customer which are in Bank, must continue to remain confidential vis-`-vis the person, even if they are no longer at the customer's house and have been voluntarily sent to a Bank. If that be the correct view of the law, we cannot accept the line of Miller in which the Court proceeded on the basis that the right to privacy is referable to the right of 'property' theory. Once that is so, then unless there is some probable or reasonable cause or reasonable basis or material before the Collector for reaching an opinion that the documents in the possession of the Bank tend, to secure any duty or to prove or to lead to the discovery of any fraud or omission in relation to any duty, the search or taking notes or extracts therefore, cannot be valid. The above safeguards must necessarily be read into the provision relating to search and inspection and seizure so as to save it from any unconstitutionality.

Supreme Court of India

Distt. Registrar & Collector, ... vs Canara Bank Etc on 1 November, 2004

Author: L . R.C.

Bench: R Lahoti, A Bhan

Print Page

Third Party Information under RTI act cannot be given without hearing 3rd party

Inspection report of RBI cannot be disclosed affecting economic interest of state hence RTI application rejected.
here's the PDF version of Judegement: Click here to download it.

Print Page