Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

64. The Committee appears to have gone only by the complaint made by the Petitioner about the undesirable physical contact alleged to have been made by Dr. Malik with her in the operation theatre at the VMMC sometime in 2001. The Committee did not attempt to inquire into any of the other incidents to which the Petitioner referred in her complaint. There were at least 47 incidents cited by her of harassment by Dr. Malik. Defining sexual harassment

65. At this stage, this Court would like to note the definition of ‗sexual harassment' as explained by the Supreme Court in Vishaka which reads as under:

69. The Directive 2006/54/EC dated 5 July 2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council ‗on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast)' defines ‗harassment' and ‗sexual harassment' in Article 2 as follows:

―(c) harassment: where an unwanted conduct related to the sex of a person occurs with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment;

(d) sexual harassment: where any form of unwanted physical, verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature occurs, with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.‖

70. To understand the different ways in which the expression is defined elsewhere, reference may be made to the recently enacted Equality Act of 2010 in the United Kingdom which consolidated the various statutes and regulations which operated in the field of anti-discrimination law, including the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 and the Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations of 2005. Besides ‗discrimination', the Equality Act defines ‗harassment' and ‗victimisation' as ‗prohibited conduct' as follows:

75. After undertaking a detailed discussion of the concept of sexual harassment, the Court observed as under:

―Common to all of these descriptions of sexual harassment is the concept of using a position of power to import sexual requirements into the workplace thereby negatively altering the working conditions of employees who are forced to contend with sexual demands.‖ Dickson, C.J. defined ‗sexual harassment' in the following terms:

―Without seeking to provide an exhaustive definition of the term, I am of the view that sexual harassment in the workplace may be broadly defined as unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that detrimentally affects the work environment or leads to adverse job-related consequences for the victims of the harassment. It is, as Adjudicator Shime observed in Bell v. Ladas, supra, and as has been widely accepted by other adjudicators and academic commentators, an abuse of power. When sexual harassment occurs in the workplace, it is an abuse of both economic and sexual power. Sexual harassment is a demeaning practice, one that constitutes a profound affront to the dignity of the employees forced to endure it. By requiring an employee to contend with unwelcome sexual actions or explicit sexual demands, sexual harassment in the workplace attacks the dignity and self-respect of the victim both as an employee and as a human being.‖ (emphasis supplied)