MILIND MAMLEKAR Vs. GOA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "The meaning and content of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to compass all the facets of gender equality". Lordship Justice J.S. Verma while delivering the judgment in the Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan , 1997 6 SCC 241 expressed above.

(2.) Sexual harassment results in violation of the fundamental rights of the woman to equality as enshrined in the Constitution and also her right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government of India has enacted The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The said enactment is an extension of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in case of Vishaka and Ors vs State Of Rajasthan (supra) in the year 1997, by acknowledging sexual harassment at workplace as human right violation. The Act is reflective of the commitment of the Government to the ratification of convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against woman and on enactment of the said statute India has become part of select group of countries who have prohibited sexual harassment at work place through a legislation.

(3.) The present case where the petitioner has assailed the penalty imposed on him pursuant to a complaint filed by a class IV employee working with the respondent, Goa University is the one which fall within the ambit and scope of the Act of 2013 where the allegations levelled against the petitioner were inquired into by the Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Woman at Work Place (CPSHW) constituted by the Goa University, the respondent to this writ petition. The petitioner assail the said decision in the backdrop of violation of the principle of natural justice and on the ground of perversity.