The Delhi High Court has made strong remarks on the persistence of sexual harassment at workplaces, observing that education, social standing, or holding a high government post does not immunize women from harassment, as the mindset of men has remained unchanged despite stringent laws and growing discourse on gender equality.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while citing Shakespeare to emphasize the deeply entrenched gender biases, lamented that even though women’s right to equal opportunity at work has now gained recognition, the real challenges of workplace harassment remain formidable.

“Though grudgingly, woman’s right to equal opportunity of work has found recognition, but challenges being faced at workplace are insurmountable and still resisted by ‘masculine strategists’ who find specious reasons to justify their acts and attitudes. The underlying challenge is the low reporting, largely due to societal pressures, fear of retaliation, and reprisals from the perpetrator,” the Court remarked.

The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Asif Hamid Khan, a government officer in the Department of Hospitality and Protocol, Jammu & Kashmir. A woman colleague had lodged a complaint against him under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

The departmental enquiry conducted under the POSH Act did not establish the allegations. Separately, an FIR was registered in Delhi, but the police filed a closure report, stating the allegations were motivated and unsupported by evidence. A supplementary closure report was also filed later.

Despite this, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) rejected the closure report, holding that the findings of a departmental Complaints Committee cannot be equated with a criminal trial. Taking note of the complainant’s statement and the material on record, the CMM summoned the accused to face trial under Sections 354A (sexual harassment) and 509 (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the IPC.

The accused challenged the summoning order before the sessions court, which dismissed his petition. The sessions court observed that departmental proceedings and criminal trials are distinct processes, each with different objectives, and exoneration in one does not automatically nullify proceedings in the other.

Khan then approached the Delhi High Court, contending that the statutory report of the Enquiry Committee under the POSH Act had conclusively absolved him and could not have been disregarded by the courts. His counsel also argued that the complainant had earlier praised him as a supportive officer, and that her witnesses did not corroborate her allegations.

Rejecting the plea, Justice Krishna held that the closure reports filed by the police did not tie the hands of the Magistrate, who was entitled to independently assess the material placed before the court. The judge underscored that the mere fact of departmental exoneration cannot serve as a ground to discharge the accused in criminal proceedings.

The Court further emphasized the courage displayed by the complainant, noting:
“This is one case where, against all odds, the complainant has found courage to report the harassment she was subjected to by her superior, and has fought her battle bravely despite attempts to deflate her strength. The State itself filed closure reports twice, yet the Court has judiciously stood with the law, which in this case, incidentally sides with the complainant.”

Concluding that the complainant’s statements, along with supporting witness accounts, prima facie disclosed offences under Sections 354A and 509 IPC, the Court dismissed the accused’s petition and upheld the summoning order.

The ruling reinforces the principle that departmental acquittal does not automatically absolve an accused in criminal law and highlights the continuing struggle of women to assert their rights in workplaces dominated by entrenched gendered power dynamics.

Case Title: Asif Hamid Khan v. State & Anr