The Supreme Court has expressed concern over a rising trend of courts invalidating proceedings into sexual misconduct at a working place on \u201chyper-technical\u201d grounds.<\/span><\/p>\n A <\/span>constable at the Border Security Force had accused the head constable of sodomising (any form of the sexual act) in 2006.<\/span><\/p>\n However, the Calcutta High Court had quashed the proceedings against the head constable on the grounds that a commandant of the Border Security Force, who had sought additional record evidence while carrying out the disciplinary proceedings, did not have the jurisdiction to do so.<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Calcutta High Court.<\/span><\/p>\n The court <\/span>observed that the right against sexual harassment is vested in all persons as a part of their right to life and right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Hence, it is important that the spirit of this right is upheld instead of rejecting sexual harassment complaints on “hyper-technical” grounds.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n For instance, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act 2013 penalizes several misconducts of a sexual nature and imposes a mandate on all public and private organizations to create adequate mechanisms for redressal.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n However, if the courts dismiss petitions on technical grounds, then the<\/span> legislation may not come to the aid of persons aggrieved of sexual harassment.<\/span><\/p>\nWhat was the issue?<\/b><\/h5>\n
What did the Supreme Court say on this?<\/b><\/h5>\n