The Bombay High Court recently upheld the findings of a company’s Internal Committee in a sexual harassment case that had been filed in 2022 under the PoSH Act , 2013. Vinod Kachave had challenged his company’s Internal Committee (IC), after they found him guilty of misconduct under the PoSH Act for singing the lyrics of “Yeh Reshmi Zulfein” and suggesting that the complainant might need a JCB to manage her hair. It was also added that he had made a personal remark at a male employee who had made the complainant uncomfortable.
The Internal committee launched an inquiry and found Kachave guilty. The IC emphasised that even if the intention was not sexual, the nature of the remark negatively impacted the complainant. This determined the outcome.
Kachave initially moved the Pune Industrial Court, asserting that his intentions were not sexual in nature. The court upheld the IC’s decision, reinforcing that complaints about romantic lyrics and comments regarding a person’s physical appearance are not trivial.
Bombay High Court ruling
Kachave approached the Bombay High Court, dissatisfied with the earlier ruling. The high court ruled in Kachave’s favour. They stated that there was no direct evidence that the complainant felt sexually harassed at that time.
One of the points stated that she communicated cordially with the accused after the incident. And that the accused previously had no records of any behaviour that could be counted as sexual harassment.
Questioning the preexisting notions
While Kachave argued that the intent was not sexual in nature, but instead it was made in humour but its impact was otherwise. Over the years, IC’s have followed the practice that the impact is more important than intent.
The important question is – “Did a seemingly harmless comment make the receiver uncomfortable?” Instead of – “Did you mean to offend?”
The court pointed out that the complainant continued to converse normally with Kachave on WhatsApp post the incident. The inference is that the complainant did not react severely immediately after is dismissive of her trauma. Delayed reaction is common in the case of harassment. Survivors of harassment mask their discomfort due to fear of retaliation or social conditioning that trains women to “be nice.”
Conclusion – A remphasis on Intent vs Impact
The ruling has set a dangerous precedent. It reinforces the assumption that harassment only counts if a woman protests loudly and immediately. It invalidates the reality that a lot of women have to live through.
It also dismisses microaggressions – seemingly harmless comments, joking about the personal lives of others – that erode their sense of safety over time.
This case could have highlighted the nuanced and invisible patterns of harassment that people face in the workplace. But instead, it reinforced the preexisting notions of how one should behave if they feel they are harassed.
It reminds us that there is a long way to go to reshape institutional understanding of gender, workplace violence and discomfort.
For more insights into PoSH compliance and creating a respectful workplace, contact Serein at hello@serein.in.