Whether Person Facing Sexual Harassment Enquiry Can Be Represented By Lawyer Or Next Friend Before ICC

Petitioner seeks to be represented in the said enquiry proceedings by a person of legal background. In this regard, he is aggrieved by an e-mail communication dated 23rd September 2022 received from ICC wherein his request to engage an advocate was declined on account of an express bar to legal representation under Rule 7(6) of Rules. {Para 5}

18. Nevertheless, in the opinion of the court, once the Petitioner gave up the challenge to the provision, he cannot be permitted to seek an alternate prayer in the nature of relief (iv) above in absence of any enabling provision under the Act or Rules which entitles the Petitioner to be represented, as the bar under Rule 7(6) would certainly apply.

19. If the Court would allow such an interpretation, then this provision would become redundant, and a floodgate of law graduates, who may not be enrolled with the bar councils to become an ‘advocate’ but are still practicing law, would pour in. The purpose of keeping the proceedings fact-based and free expert legal advisory, would be lost. That apart, there is also merit in the observation that this will create a prejudice for the complainant, whose case is also being considered by the internal committee without the aid of the legal practitioner or next friend.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 14547/2022

JOHNEY REBERIO Vs  UNION OF INDIA & ORS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Date of Decision: 14th October, 2022

Print Page

Kerala HC;Internal complaint committee should follow principles of Natural justice in case sexual harassment complaint

  The fundamental principles relating to the

principles of natural justice is that when a prejudicial

statements are made, the same shall not be used against any

person without giving him an opportunity to correct and

contradict. In sexual harassment complaint, sometimes the

complainant may not have courage to depose all that has

happened to her at the work place.         There may be an

atmosphere restraining free expression of victim's grievance

before the Committee.         The privacy and secrecy of such

victims' also required to be protected. It is to be noted that

verbal cross examination is not the sole criteria to controvert

or contradict any statement given by the aggrieved before

any authority. Primarily, in a sexual harassment complaint,



the committee has to verify and analyse the capability of the

aggrieved to depose before them fearlessly without any

intimidation.  If the Committee is of the view that the

aggrieved is a feeble and cannot withstand any cross

examination, the Committee can adopt such other measures

to ensure that the witnesses statement is contradicted or

corrected by the delinquent in other manner. The fair

opportunity, therefore, has to be understood in the context of

atmosphere of free expression of grievance. If the Committee

is of the view that the witness or complainant can freely

depose without any fear, certainly, the delinquent can be

permitted to have verbal cross examination of such

witnesses. In cases, where the Committee is of the view that

the complainant is not in a position to express freely, the



Committee can adopt such other method permitting the

delinquent to contradict and correct either by providing

statement to the delinquent and soliciting his objections to

such statement.

     18.  What is reminded here by this Court to the

Committee is that a fair opportunity should be given to the

delinquent in such manner the Committee think fit to

consider.  There is no easy and precise rule defining fair

opportunity.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                   FRIDAY,THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016

                                          WP(C).No. 4001 of 2016 (A)
                                          
            L.S.SIBU, OFFICER, APRON, GROUND SERVICES DEPARTMENT (GSD),
           Vs

         AIR INDIA LIMITED,

Print Page