The present case was brought as a class action by certain social activists and NGOs with the aim of focusing attention towards the social malaise of sexual harassment and to prevent the sexual harassment of working women in all workplaces through the judicial process, to fill the vacuum in existing legislation.

The Supreme Court held that sexual harassment of working women at her place of employment amounts to violation of rights of gender equality and right to life and liberty enshrined in Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court further observed that the meaning and content of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all the facts of gender equality including prevention of sexual harassment or abuse. Further, the Supreme Court, in this case said that, as there is no law relating to sexual harassment in India, therefore, the provisions of International Conventions and norms are to be taken into consideration, and charted certain guidelines to be observed at all work places or other institutions until a legislation is enacted for the purpose.

A complaint of sexual harassment and an attempt to molest was filed against the respondent wherein he was found guilty in departmental proceedings and thereby removed from the service by the employer. The respondent filed a writ petition against the order of dismissal from service wherein it was held that he only tried to molest and did not actually molest the complainant, therefore he must be reinstated. Employer filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the said order wherein Supreme Court reversed the order of the Writ Court and held that even though in the instant case the act did not amount to actual molestation, yet it will amount to sexual harassment and departmental enquiry has rightly held the respondent guilty and thereby his termination from service was also upheld.

In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the Vishaka ruling and said that attempts of sexual harassment of females results in violation of the fundamental rights to gender equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court further stated that international instruments such as the convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Beijing Declaration casts obligations on the State to take appropriate measures to prevent gender inequalities and protect the honour and dignity of women.

This was a group of four issues filed by way of Public Interest Litigation with the principal grievance being that women continue to be victims of sexual harassment at the workplace. The Vishaka guidelines are followed in breach of its substance and spirit by the state functionaries and all other concerned. Women workers are subjected to sexual harassment through legal & extra-legal methods and they are  made to suffer insult & dignity.

The Supreme Court held that each complaints committee is to be headed by a woman and as far as possible an independent member to be associated with each complaints committee.

In this case the Supreme Court took note of the fact that there is still no proper mechanism in place to address the complaints of sexual harassment of the women lawyers in Bar Associations, lady doctors and nurses in the medical clinics and nursing homes, women architects working in the offices of the engineers and architects and issued necessary directions on the same.

This case was a writ petition filed by the aggrieved woman who became a victim of sexual harassment but could not secure justice through her service rules. Thereby she filed for the writ of mandamus directing the state authorities of Sikkim to implement the Vishaka guidelines in letter & spirit.

While directing the Sikkim government to implement the said guidelines in its service rules and to publicize the same, it was clarified by the Supreme Court in this case that the report of the Complaints Committee to be deemed to be an enquiry report under Service Rules and sexual harassment of women at workplace amounts to misconduct under Service Rules.

This Writ petition was filed by two Supreme Court advocates, for certain relief on the basis of the newspaper report, wherein it was reported about that an employee of the Delhi High Court has been found filming lady advocates in the chamber toilets.

Thereupon a Sub-committee was constituted by the Supreme Court in this case to look into the issue of gender sensitization and prevention of sexual harassment of women at Supreme Court & other HC & District Courts were also directed to follow suit.

In this case an ex-female judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court raised allegations that she was sexually harassed by her fellow judges as a result of the same she had to resign from her post. While adjudicating one of the issues in the case the Supreme Court held that:

“Sexual Harassment has variety of fine connotations- Its evaluation may sometimes depend upon the sensitivity of person concerned i.e. the manner in which the offending act is perceived. Moreover whether the perception of the victim was made known to the accused would also be relevant specially in the cases of oversensitivity since thereafter he would not be able to defend himself by projecting that he has not sexually harassed the victim because he believed the alleged act was unoffending"

Further since in the present case the proceedings of the “In House procedure” under the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court as presiding officer were held to be invalid and Chief Justice on India was requested to authorize some other person to preside over the in-house proceedings in the case or himself assume the said role.

In this case several complaints were filed against the head of the department in an institution seeking enquiry against him for sexual harassing several female assistant professors in his department, and to stop the transfer of such female assistant professors. While remanding the matter back to the ICC and directing the institution to conduct the enquiry under the 2013 Act the Bombay High Court also held that:

“the employer has to be genuinely concerned with the safety of woman at workplace under him/it and cannot stage a farce of compliance with the obligation cast by the 2013 Act. Here the efforts made by the Respondents show lack of sincerity and earnest desire to really scrutinize the alleged grievances of Petitioners as per law. The importance of an NGO Member on ICC need not be emphasized. Said member must be really concerned with all ICC proceedings and being third party, must make all-out efforts to see that any Respondent as defined in the 2013 Act does not succeed in avoiding the inquiry into his conduct. Such NGO Member must make efforts to coordinate working of various members of ICC and must see that provisions of law are respected and implemented. Such NGO representative has to strive to ensure that healthy and comfortable atmosphere prevails or is restored at the concerned workplace. Here, ICC fails to inspire confidence as also trust in the mind of Aggrieved Women about sanctity of its own proceedings and tends to defeat the spirit of the 2013 Act. It vitiates entire exercise undertaken and completed by present ICC in this matter.”

In the instant case Complainant filed both criminal complaint under Section 354A IPC & Complaint to ICC under the Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal )Act, 2013 against a fellow colleague.

During the pendency of enquiry with ICC she filed an application to stay the enquiry until the criminal complaint is decided on the ground that ICC proceedings might be affected by the proceedings in criminal complaint. Presiding officer submitted that enquiry shall not be affected by criminal complaint. Hence it was held by the Delhi High Court that her such demand cannot be sustained and the ICC enquiry was not stayed.

The complainant, who was a lady Constable, was on temporary duty in the State Crime Record Bureau (SCRB), Madhuban. She used to teach in the Finger Print class. On the very first day of her joining the department, the present petitioner-accused, who was posted as Inspector scolded her by demanding to know who had posted her to that office. He also directed her to come to Hisar where he would be staying in a hotel. However, she refused. He also called her in the chamber and scolded her. Thereafter, he called her to his cabin and told her he was going to Panipat and she should accompany him. He also declared love for her. He told her that he would call her on the telephone and that she should pick up the telephone. Thereafter, petitioner called her at 6 O'clock in the evening. However, she did not pick up the phone and remained disturbed. Petitioner raised a threat to her that he would disturb her to the extent that she would be forced to commit suicide. On this complaint initially inquiry was conducted by an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, SCRB, Madhuban and in the said inquiry, petitioner was exonerated. However, complainant, being dissatisfied with the said inquiry, made another complaint to Director General Police and on his direction, a detailed inquiry was conducted by a woman IPS officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of. She also discussed the earlier inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and came to the conclusion that complainant is a woman employee and petitioner by showing his authority started making verbal and physical advances towards her followed by rough behaviour and the same came within the definition of sexual harassment as defined by The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. It was on the basis of the said inquiry the present FIR was lodged.

Consequent to filing of the FIR against the respondent under Sections 354A, 354D, 506 & 509 of IPC, the respondent filed for an anticipatory bail under Section 438 IPC but the same was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

One Coordinator for Special Olympics Bharat (hereinafter described as ‘complainant’) made a complaint to the Director, PRC, LNIPE, Gwalior that the then In-charge Vice Chancellor came to Mahatma Gandhi Hostel on 07.07.2013 at around 8.30 a.m. along with his wife. The complainant along with her friend offered a cup of tea to the visitors and when the complainant went to the kitchen the VC followed her and informed her that he could get her a job having a salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month.

Thereafter, he hugged her and tried to molest her. The complainant pushed him aside and called her colleague and thereafter the complaint was lodged with the Director, PRC, LNIPE, Gwalior. An FIR was also lodged at the Police Station.

The petitioner in this PIL has pleaded that in spite of lodging the complaint and FIR no action has been taken by the authorities against the respondent No. 7. He was not arrested by the police. It is further pleaded that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1997 SC 3011 have not been followed neither the authorities have taken any action in accordance with the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

In reply to this respondent submitted that the committee has already been constituted and it has submitted its recommendations wherein the In-Charge Vice Chancellor has been found guilty.

In this case there was an excess delay by the employer in acting upon the recommendations made by the ICC therefore The Court directed to employer to take immediate and prompt action as per the law in this regard.

In this case petitioner raised a grievance that the ICC prepared an Enquiry report in violations of the principles of natural justice without affording her an opportunity to present her case before ICC. Her grievance was supported by the independent member of the ICC who verified that the petitioner was not actually heard before preparing the enquiry report. Therefore the enquiry report was held to be invalid.

This matter pertains to an RTI application dated 9.4.2014, filed by the Appellant, seeking a copy of the enquiry proceedings of the enquiry conducted by the internal women's committee of NABARD in a complaint of sexual harassment, made by a lady employee of the bank, copy of the complainant's statements recorded before the committee, copy of the statement of the accused recorded before the committee, copy of the report of the committee, copies of notings of the concerned authorities in the matter, copy of the show cause notice issued to the accused and copies of the documents pertaining to the subsequent enquiry proceedings, copy of the complaint registered with B K C Police Station by the management on the issue, copy of the letter on record of the bank which was written to SC/ST Commission by a Member of Parliament, copy of the letter written by the National Commission for Women to the Chairman of NABARD and reply to the same, if any, and copy of the letter written by the Finance Secretary to NABARD management and reply thereto. The CPIO responded on 7.5.2014 and denied the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He also cited Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 in favour of denial of information. The Appellant filed an appeal to the FAA on 3.6.2014. In his order dated 24.6.2014, the FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. The Appellant filed second appeal to the CIC, which was received by the Commission on 11.8.2014.

In this case it was held that the information relating to the enquiry conducted by ICC cannot be revealed to a third party even upon an RTI Application filed under Right to Information Act, 2013

In the present case husband of the aggrieved women filed an application under RTI Act seeking information on report submitted by ICC on the complaint of her wife.

CIC held in this regard that husband has no locus standi in the present case and the information asked for cannot be given to him when the report has already been shared with his wife in this regard who was the actual complainant.

Disciplinary proceedings were started against the petitioner based on the complaint in 2012. No allegation of sexual harassment was made at that time at that time. The enquiry proceedings were concluded in year 2014 wherein he was awarded a certain punishment. Thereafter the complainant again filed a complaint with the ICC based on the same incidence of 2012, which was accepted by the ICC.

Calcutta High Court in this case ruled that ICC was not justified in entertaining the complaint after expiry of 2 years from the date of incidence therefore the proceedings of ICC were set aside and it was directed not to proceed with the enquiry in this regard.

The Petitioner objected at the very beginning that the Committee examining her complaint of sexual harassment was not properly constituted. She wrote numerous letters to the MHFW and to other authorities. But none of them paid any heed to her repeated requests. It was held by the Delhi High Court that There cannot be a manner of doubt that it was not consistent with the requirements of the law as explained by the Supreme Court in Vishaka She had to approach this Court very often for redress. From her point of view, as a victim of sexual harassment, she was entitled to ask for a Committee that was constituted strictly in accordance with the Vishaka guidelines. The Petitioner could not be expected to be sanguine that her complaint would be enquired into in a fair and impartial way. If she decided not to participate in the proceedings before such Committee, no adverse inference could be drawn against her on that score.

In this Case a female employee raised a complaint of sexual harassment but the employer had not established ICC under the 2013 Act neither there was any other redressal mechanism. Therefore the matter reached the Madras High Court wherein the complaint of the aggrieved women was upheld and the employer was directed to pay her Rs. 1.68 Crores as compensation for loss of pay and employment opportunities due to delay in redressal procedure owing to non compliance of the employer under the 2013 Act.

In the instant case respondent D.G. Police was held guilty for slapping a woman on posterior in public gaze, while at a dinner party under the offence of outraging the modesty of the women under Section 509 of the IPC.

The challenge is made to an order dated 13^th September, 2014 by which a complaints committee was constituted to look into an issue of sexual harassment in Durgapur Projects Limited. A complaint of sexual harassment was lodged by a female staff of the Durgapur Projects Limited against the petitioner and a committee was constituted in terms of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Held that enquiry done by ICC established under Vishaka guidelines cannot be branded invalid after 2013 Act because the guidelines in Vishaka Judgment & 2013 Act are same in letter and spirit. Pending enquiries can continue under existing committee. However it is prudent to reformulate the ICC in line with the 2013 Act.

The petition was filed challenging (i) the order dated 14^th August, 2015 of the respondent Sports Authority of India (SAI) and (ii) the exclusion of the petitioner from ongoing camp organized from 29^th July, 2015 to 20^th September, 2015 for preparation for International Competition. Mandamus was also sought directing the respondent SAI to include the name of the petitioner as a coach in the ongoing camp.

Held that Petitioner was rightly excluded from the Coaching Camp on account of a pending Sexual Harassment Complaint under 2013 Act and FIR in this regard. The court further stated that Act provides for such exclusion.

In the present case the petitioner wanted to get the matter investigated by the Internal Complaints Committee as per the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace: (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Sexual Harassment Act’) and not under Central Civil Service (conduct) Rules, 1965

It was held that Act does not prohibit enquiry of complaint on sexual harassment under Central Civil Service Rules instead of ICC because as per Section 28 of the Act provisions of this law is not derogatory to any other law in force.

It was held by the Gujarat High Court in this case that if ICC is not headed by a senior level female officer then the actions of the committee are liable to be disregarded and set aside. It was also held that an independent member from an NGO or other such association is also a must for an ICC to be valid under the 2013 Act.

Upon allegation of Sexual Harassment by a Lady Officer, Committee was constituted consisting of 4 members, i.e. 3 Lady members & 1 from an NGO. Petitioner challenged the constitution of the committee on the ground that there is no lady member senior to the officer against whom the allegations have been made as per the provisions of the Act.

It was held by the Allahabad High Court that female presiding officer must be of Senior level. It is not necessary that she must be senior to the officer against whom the allegations have been leveled.

In the present case petitioner sought to be transferred from her job on the following grounds:

It is stated by the petitioner that she was entrusted with the duty of Madhyamik Pariksha 2010 at Sadi Khans Dearh Vidyaniketan where she met teachers of that institution along with one assistant teacher namely, Bakbul Haque of that institution. The said Bakbul Haque somehow managed to obtain her cell-phone number and started making phone calls causing her irritation and continued to do so repeatedly by ignoring her repeated objections.

On or about 25 July, 2010 when she went to the office of the S.I concerned of Jor Tala, she found the said Bakbul Haque was present there. On that date she was shown her nude (undressed) photograph by the said Bakbul Haque. The petitioner was shocked to see her said photograph in the cell-phone of the said Bakbul Haque. She requested him to give the said photograph and the memory card of the cell-phone where her photograph was loaded. Bakbul informed her that her several other nude photographs are in his custody. Bakbul demanded money from time to time which the petitioner paid to keep her prestige intact but Bakbul never returned those nude photographs and the memory card to her. On the contrary, as per the dictate of the said Bakbul she had to visit the house of one Ajbar Seikh on 7^th February, 2011 where she felt unconscious for two hours after taking a glass of water provided by them but neither the photographs nor the memory cards were returned to her. Ultimately on a promise being made by the said Bakbul for return of those nude photographs and memory card to the petitioner, the petitioner had to go with him to the hotel Monjusha at Lalbagh, Murshidabad on 6^th March, 2011, where against her will and consent she was forcibly raped by the said Bakbul Haque who ultimately denied to hand over any of those things. It was under such a situation an F.I.R was lodged against the said Bakbul Haque and Ajbar Seikh in Jalangi Police Station on 11^th June, 2011. A criminal case being Jalangi Police Station Case No. 464 of 2011 dated 11^th June, 2011 under Section 376/379/384 of the Indian Penal Code was started on the basis of the petitioner's said complaint. The said criminal case is still pending.

One of the points raised was whether the above act would be deemed to be sexual harassment at workplace?

 It was held by the Calcutta High Court that workplace cannot be given a restricted meaning so as to restrict the application of the said guidelines within the short and narrow campus of the school compound. Workplace should be given a broader and wider meaning so that the said guidelines can be applied where its application is needed even beyond the compound of the workplace for removal of the obstacle of like nature which prevents a working woman from attending her place of work and also for providing a suitable and congenial atmosphere to her in her place of work where she can continue her service with honour and dignity.

Gaurav Jain was employed as Regional Operation Manager for Technical Support Group (TSG) of the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) to render his services as Team Leader on April 22, 2008 with Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotion Trust (in short HLFPPT). On December 31, 2013 the complainant was employed as Operation Analyst TSG, NACO with HLFPPT for a period of 9 months on contract basis. From 22^nd to 25^th July, 2014 Gaurav Jain as Team Leader along with the other team members including the complainant went for an official visit to Hyderabad. A complaint was made by the complainant on September 24, 2014 when her 9 months period came to an end to the HR Department against Gaurav Jain regarding sexual harassment which was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).

In the present case, the main accused was terminated from his service for sexual harassment against a female employee. Apart from that, other male members, while not participating in the act of sexual harassment did not help the victim when the harassment was being perpetrated in their presence, were issued a written warning from the management in this regard and directed to attend counseling sessions on gender sensitivity.