PRASAD PANNIAN Vs. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases had been referred to us based on a reference order dated 15/9/2020. The substantial issue raised in the writ petitions was whether a complaint given by the 8 th respondent in WP(C) No. 9219/2020 can be the basis of an enquiry under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act , 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act').

(2.) The writ petitioner contended that the allegations in the complaint given by the 8th respondent did not disclose any form of sexual harassment coming within the purview of the 2013 Act. Reference was also placed to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Anil Rajagopal v. State of Kerala and Others [2017 (5) KHC 217], wherein the learned Single Judge after referring to the definition of 'sexual harassment' under Section 2(n) of the 2013 Act and S.3(2) held at paragraph 9 as under:

(3.) We heard the learned senior counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner duly assisted by Smt.Surya Binoy. Senior counsel argued that the provisions of the 2013 Act cannot be given a wide interpretation as envisaged by the learned Single Judge in the reference order. It is pointed out that harassment can be meted out against an individual in different forms and only in instances where the harassment has an element of sexual advance in some form, it becomes a sexual harassment. A mere difference in sex between two individuals cannot give rise to a sexual harassment even though there might be harassment. To that extent, the learned Single Judge was not justified in taking a view different from what is held in Anil Rajagopal's case (supra). That apart, it is argued that the provisions of the 2013 Act have to be given a strict interpretation since any action pursuant to a complaint of sexual harassment will affect the reputation and integrity of the opposite sex and such acts may lead to penal consequence as well.