In the year 2020, the workplaces around the globe had a paramount shift. The virtual world had harbored the growth of a virtual workplace. Courts time and again have adjudicated on how the PoSH Act includes online harassment and virtual workspaces.
Sanjay Mishra vs bank of Baroda: Facts of the case
A complaint of sexual harassment was lodged against another employee working in a different state of the same bank. A petition was filed by the chief management via a subordinate employee of the same bank. The petitioner was seeking quashing of a charge sheet issued to him by the disciplinary authority of the bank.
The Court while adjudicating on the matter widened the scope of including online harassment as the extension of a workplace. The opinion of the court was that
In the present digital world, workplace for employees working in the bank and who may have worked in the same branch of the bank and later on shifted to different branches will be treated as one workplace on a digital platform regardless of the employees being situated in different branches/States. With the global shift to the work from home model owing to the on-going pandemic, more individuals and particularly women are finding themselves vulnerable to online sexual harassment.
Saurabh Kumar Mallick vs. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India: Facts of the case
The role of technology in sexual harassment cases was brought into the conversation. The court examined such instances by stating an example:
while it was becoming possible for CEO’s to run their offices from their residence, in such case if a person were to indulge in an act of sexual harassment with another employee, it would not be open for him to say that he had not committed the act at the ‘workplace’, but at his residence. The narrow definition of ‘workplace’ cannot be accepted. While it may be difficult to define the term ‘workplace’ in a straight jacket as the same would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
How can the IC apply this while investigating cases?
- The court emphasises not giving a narrow definition as to what constructs to being a workplace. In the virtual workspace, the court highlights that women now entering this space need the same amount of protection that they would receive in a physical workplace.
- The court further talks about the role of technology that is utilized towards harassing a woman. Here the IC can also keep in mind while inquiring how technology was used to commit the act of harassment.
- The court also speaks about not taking a straight jacket approach while analyzing as to where the harassment occurred, the facts and circumstances impact what will construct it to be a workplace.