lawrota.com

In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court of India has declined a plea seeking amendments to the Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013. The proposed amendments aimed to make these regulations gender-neutral, extending their protective umbrella to individuals from the LGBTQIA+ community. However, the court, in its wisdom, held that the primary purpose of these regulations is to safeguard ‘aggrieved women’ in the workplace, specifically the Supreme Court of India.

The regulations in question were established following the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and were notified by the Supreme Court in the same year. One of the key requests made in the application was the replacement of the definition of “aggrieved woman” with “aggrieved persons.” Nevertheless, the bench, comprised of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, expressed that any amendments that dilute or denude the core objective of the 2013 Regulations would be inappropriate.

The application was submitted by Advocate Binu Tamta and Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhika. Makhika argued that the existing regulations were “wholly inadequate” in addressing the concerns of LGBTQIA+ persons and emphasized the need for inclusivity, drawing on the celebrated case of National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) vs. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 348.

Apart from changing the definition of “aggrieved woman” to include “aggrieved persons,” the application sought several other directions. These included defining “sexual harassment” in gender-neutral terms, amending the regulations to permit individuals of all genders to seek remedies, and forming a committee to assess the adequacy of the Regulations’ existing sensitization activities and recommend necessary changes to expand their scope and reach.

The Court’s reasoning revolved around the fact that the existing Regulations were designed to protect aggrieved women in the workplace, aligning with Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which provides for special provisions for women. The Court acknowledged that the current definition of “aggrieved woman” did not encompass LGBTQIA+ persons. However, it asserted that amending the existing Regulations was not the appropriate remedy, as doing so would shift the primary focus away from preventing sexual harassment against women at the Supreme Court of India.

Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized that a Constitutional Court could not issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature or a rule-making body to enact specific legislation. In light of these arguments, Makhija withdrew the application and expressed her intention to make a representation to the Gender Sensitization Committee of the Supreme Court, advocating for the formulation of a new set of Regulations specifically catering to the protection of LGBTQIA+ individuals from workplace sexual harassment at the Supreme Court of India.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to maintain the gender-specific focus of workplace protection regulations has sparked debates about LGBTQIA+ rights and the need for a more inclusive legal framework. While the court’s ruling underscores the importance of preserving the original intent of the Regulations, it also highlights the ongoing struggle to ensure comprehensive protection for all individuals in the workplace. The legal landscape continues to evolve, and the conversation about LGBTQIA+ rights and workplace protections remains an important and dynamic aspect of the legal field.

#SupremeCourt #LGBTQIA+Rights #WorkplaceProtection #GenderSensitization #LegalRegulations