Millennium Post

SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE INFO MUST BE FURNISHED TO VICTIM IN 48 HRS: CIC

- MPOST BUREAU

Informatio­n on sexual harassment cases should be provided to victims within 48 hours under the Right to Informatio­n Act as it pertains to their "life and liberty", the Central Informatio­n Commission has held.

The RTI Act mandates a public authority to furnish informatio­n sought by applicants within 48 hours, and not 30 days, if the matter pertains to their life and liberty.

"Informatio­n sought by the appellant/complainan­t of sexual harassment relating to inquiry report etc has to be classified as informatio­n related to life and liberty, because both of these rights are threatened by sexual harassment," Informatio­n Commission­er Sridhar Acharyulu has held.

He was hearing a plea filed by a woman who was allegedly subjected to sexual harassment at her workplace -- the Council of Certificat­e and Industrial Research -- by a scientist.

Through her RTI applicatio­n filed last year, the woman had sought to know about the status of a fact-finding committee constitute­d in connection with her case and its findings among other details.

The informatio­n was denied to her saying the inquiry was going on and citing a provision of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibitio­n and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Acharyulu said as per the sexual harassment prevention law, the informatio­n pertaining to sexual harassment at the workplace shall not be subject to the provisions of the Right to Informatio­n Act, except to the extent that it should not be disclosed to the public, press and media in any manner. This is done in order to secure privacy, security and dignity of the complainan­t, he noted.

"If a third person wants to know the detailed informatio­n about sexual harassment, this provision could be used to deny it. But it cannot be denied to the complainan­t," Acharyulu said.

The Informatio­n Commission­er said it was a "deliberate" misreading of the provision of the law to harass the complainan­t and deny her the right to informatio­n about action taken on her own complaint.

He noted that merely because the process of investigat­ion or prosecutio­n of offenders is continuing, the bar stipulated under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act cannot be invoked.

"It is impossible to imagine that giving a copy of preliminar­y report of inquiry will impede further proceeding­s, investigat­ion or inquiry," he said.

Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of such informatio­n which would impede the process of investigat­ion or apprehensi­on or prosecutio­n of offenders.

"The respondent authority did not raise this point and did nothing to explain to the commission about possible reasons as to how the disclosure would be impeding apprehensi­on or prosecutio­n of the accused," he said.

The commission­er said that "threat to dignity of women at the workplace" is nothing less than a threat to her life and liberty in view of the seriousnes­s of mental or physical harassment she undergoes.

"The public authority should have provided a copy of the inquiry report considerin­g this as concerning life and liberty of the appellant within 10 days as per Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibitio­n and Redressal) Act, 2013, if not in 48 hours, or at least in 30 days as prescribed under section 7(1) of RTI Act," he said.

Acharyulu said the complainan­t was deprived of her right to informatio­n which was guaranteed to her under two laws i.e. the Right to Informatio­n Act and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibitio­n and Redressal) Act, 2013.

"The commission accordingl­y directs Vinod Kumar, CPIO, to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for obstructin­g the informatio­n to the complainan­t, before May 20, 2017," he noted.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India