Last Updated: January 13, 2023, 15:49 IST
The issue concerns the registration of marriage of a couple who are not Indians but have been in India for six months, looking to marry and continue staying in India.
Justice Vikas Mahajan stressed the need to take sexual harassment complaints with “seriousness” and “responsibility”. He stated that such complaints must be investigated and resolved and must be taken to their logical conclusion
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a sexual harassment complaint and the inquiry proceedings emanating from it cannot be quashed solely because the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) failed to complete the inquiry within the timeframe specified in Section 11(4) of the Act.
Justice Vikas Mahajan stressed the need to take sexual harassment complaints with “seriousness” and “responsibility”. He stated that such complaints must be investigated and resolved and must be taken to their logical conclusion which is in the interest of the complainant as well as the accused.
“Needless to say, such complaints containing allegations of sexual harassment deserve to be treated with a certain amount of seriousness and responsibility, and accordingly, the same has to be inquired into and taken to their logical conclusion for it is both in the interest of the complainant as well as the person against whom the allegations of sexual harassment have been leveled,” the single-judge bench said.
Justice Mahajan made the observations while denying interim relief to a Chartered Accountant, challenging the initiation of proceedings against him based on a complaint filed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) [POSH] Act, 2013.
The CA challenged proceedings against him on several grounds, including the fact that the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) did not complete its investigation even 90 days after the complaint was filed.
The bench stated that the petitioner’s argument that the proceedings were vitiated due to the lapse of 90 days had “no substance”, and that he also did not point out any prejudice caused to him as a result of the delay.
The court also noted that the petitioner’s delay was not attributed to the complainant. Accordingly, the court declined to intervene in the proceedings at this stage and sought a response from the complainant and the ICC.
Finding no prima facie case for granting interim relief in favor of the petitioner, the court ordered respondents to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks. Accordingly, scheduled the matter was for further hearing on March 28.
Read all the Latest India News here
