Subscribe
The Delhi High Court, on Tuesday, September 8, pulled up the Union government over the disclosure of a sexual harassment survivor’s identity in a POSH handbook published by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, questioning how the government could circulate such material on its official website. “How is the name of the victim disclosed in this? How can you do that?” the court asked.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed the counsel appearing for the Union government to obtain instructions and return with the names of officials “responsible for the content” of the handbook.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a man accused of workplace sexual harassment, who sought removal of his name from the handbook after stating that the dispute between the parties had subsequently been settled.
The petitioner’s counsel told the court that an order passed by a Labour Tribunal had been included in the Ministry’s POSH handbook as an anecdote. The lawyer submitted that the material disclosed not only the petitioner’s identity but also the name of the woman who was the survivor. The counsel further argued that the handbook was available “everywhere and anywhere” on the internet.
The Union government’s counsel submitted that the handbook had been published in November 2015 for educational purposes and that the parties had only recently settled the matter.
The explanation, however, did not satisfy the court. Questioning the disclosure of the survivor’s identity, Justice Sharma said, “So will it reveal the name of the victim? Even a judgement cannot.”
The judge further pointed out that the educational purpose of the handbook could not justify identifying the survivor. “For educational purpose you don't need the victim's name, right? Even the judges write ‘X’,” Justice Sharma observed.
The court also referred to Supreme Court and High Court directions protecting the identities of survivors of sexual offences and emphasised that disclosure of such an identity is prohibited by law.
“You cannot disclose the name. Now it is punishable,” the judge said.
The court stressed that the Union government itself was responsible for ensuring that the law was followed while preparing and circulating an official publication. Justice Sharma questioned how the government could publish material revealing the survivor’s identity and then circulate it through its official website.
“How is the name of the victim disclosed in this? How can you do that? You are the government of India. You yourself are publishing revealing the name of the victim and you are circulating it. It is on your official website,” the judge said.
The court also rejected the suggestion that the authorities could be absolved of responsibility because the parties had approached the court only after the handbook had been published.
Justice Sharma said, “Even if they are late in coming to the court, that will not absolve you of your responsibility of following the law. That's for everybody, even the government, right?”
The court noted that legal protections concerning the identity of survivors were already established and that the government could not rely on the passage of time or the subsequent settlement between the parties to justify the disclosure.
The petitioner has also sought removal of the relevant material and directions for its de-indexing from the internet. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the handbook remained widely accessible online.
The court has sought details of the officials responsible for the content of the handbook from the Union government’s counsel. The matter will be taken up again on Wednesday, September 9.
