A cursory glance at Section 2(m) of the 2013 Act shows that the term "respondent" brings within its fold "a person", thereby including persons of all genders. {Para 11}
12. Although there is substance in the submission of the petitioner that the said expression has to be read in conjunction with the rest of the statue as a whole, there is nothing in Section 9 of the 2013 Act [which has been referred to in Section 2(m)] to preclude a same-gender complaint under the Act. Although it might seem a bit odd at the first blush that people of the same gender complain of sexual harassment against each other, it is not improbable, particularly in the context of the dynamic mode which the Indian society is adopting currently, even debating the issue as to whether same-gender marriages may be legalized.
13. That apart, the definition of "sexual harassment" in Section 2(n) cannot be a static concept but has to be interpreted against the back-drop of the social perspective. Sexual harassment, as contemplated in the 2013 Act, thus, has to pertain to the dignity of a person, which relates to her/his gender and sexuality; which does not mean that any person of the same gender cannot hurt the modesty or dignity as envisaged by the 2013 Act. A person of any gender may feel threatened and sexually harassed when her/his modesty or dignity as a member of the said gender is offended by any of the acts, as contemplated in Section 2(n), irrespective of the sexuality and gender of the perpetrator of the act.
14. If Section 3(2) is looked into, it is seen that the acts contemplated therein can be perpetrated by the members of any gender, even inter se. In such context, the language of Section 2(m), Section 2(n) and Section 3 of the 2013 Act is set out below:-
"2(m) "respondent" means a person against whom the aggrieved woman has made a complaint under section 9;
15. In such view of the matter, the act alleged by the private respondent to have been perpetrated by the petitioner, as evident from the complaint dated September 15, 2020 (Annexure P-5), is maintainable under the 2013 Act. Hence, the complaint cannot be turned down at the outset.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
W.P.A. 9141 of 2020
Decided On: 27.11.2020
Malabika Bhattacharjee Vs. Internal Complaints Committe, Vivekananda College and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
Citation: MANU/WB/0752/2020.
Print Page