Mumbai High Court guidelines challenged in Supreme Court regarding POSH act
A woman who hails from Mumbai has moved the Pinnacle Court against an order passed by the Mumbai High Court in 2021 that laid down guidelines to protect the identities of the parties involved in proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) and Rules
The Judgement under appeal was passed on September 24, 2021 by Justice GS Patel, who among other things imposed a bar on parties and lawyers from disclosing to the media the contents of any order, judgment or filing to the media or publishing any such material in any mode or fashion by any means, including social media, without specific leave of the court
The single-judge had noted that there were no established guidelines governing the field, and therefore, proceeded to set out a working protocol to govern hearings and case file management to protect the identity of parties even from accidental disclosure in proceedings under the Act
The Special Leave Petition against the same before the top court has been filed by advocate Abha Singh, who represented the original plaintiff in the case
In the order passed on September 24, 2021, Justice GS Patel issued the following guidelines regarding proceedings under the POSH Act and Rules:
1. Neither the names of parties nor their personally identifiable information should be mentioned anywhere in any court order
2. Orders and judgments on merits will not be uploaded. All orders and judgments will be delivered in private, i.e. in the chamber or in camera
3. Entire record to be kept sealed and not be given to any person without a court order. Fresh filings to be sealed also
4. All hearings to be held in chamber or in-camera. No online facility. Only physical appearance. Support staff must leave the court
5. Unless there is a specific court order, the orders will not be revealed in the public domain. At best, only an anonymised version of the order will be released
6. Both sides, parties, and advocates are prohibited from releasing any order or judgment contents to the media Witnesses must sign non-disclosure agreements
7. Any breach of guidelines is a contempt of court
Ms. Singh has argued that the HC order violates the principles of open court as enshrined in the Swapnil Tripathi judgment.
She argued that such an order cannot be passed in a suit for compensation due to wrongful and retaliatory termination.
“The high court has failed to take into consideration that any blanket ban or gag order in the form of an injunction restraining the broadcast of true and accurate facts will encroach upon the people’s right to know and violate their right to information, which is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This will have a devastating and detrimental effect on the society at large,” the plea, drafted by advocate Abha Singh on behalf of the victim, said.
Finally, the petition says “It will legitimise undue protection to sexual offenders in gross violation of principles of open court, natural justice and fundamental rights of survivors”.
