Expressions ‘Baby’,‘Sweety’ Need Not Always Be Sexually Colored: Calcutta HC Cautions Against Applying 'Reverse Bias' Against Males In Sexual Harassment Cases
The Calcutta High Court has observed expressions such as ‘baby’ and ‘sweety’ may be prevalent in certain social circles and need not always be sexually coloured.
The Court also cautioned against applying 'reverse bias' against male accused in cases of sexual harassment.
The Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, “It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.7 peeped into her room or stated at her at a time when she was in a compromising or embarrassing position. It is not quite credible that in the living quarters where there may be others as well, including CCTV coverage, such action of the respondent no.7 would go unnoticed. “Staring” has various shades and does not always necessarily lead to sexual harassment as contemplated in the 2013 Act… The use of the expressions “baby‟ and “sweety” has been held by the ICC itself to be inappropriate. However, it is to be noted that once the petitioner informed the respondent no.7 about her discomfort in that regard by WhatsApp and otherwise, the petitioner never repeated the terms of endearment to address the petitioner. Such expressions may be prevalent in certain social circles and need not always be sexually coloured.”
Regarding reverse bias, the court said: "In allegations of sexual harassment, which are sensitive by their very nature, one has to be careful that a reverse bias does not operate against the involved male accused. Since the Statute itself provides sufficient protection (quite rightly so, in view of the harassments often faced by women at their workplaces), a double layer of protection, if extended by adjudicating forums to the complainant, might be counterproductive, since excessive abuse of the provisions of the statute will create more glass ceilings than they remove, creating fetters in the employment of genuinely competent and hard-working female persons."
Advocate Pramit Bag appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Dhiraj Trivedi appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner joined as a trainee officer of the Coast Guard as Assistant Commander, was employed as a Deputy Commandment and subsequently retired from her services in December 2021. She alleged that she was sexually harassed by the Respondent who was the Commanding Officer at the relevant juncture. The complaint was taken up by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which was dismissed after hearing both parties. Hence the present writ petition.
The Petitioner submitted that he used to stare at her inappropriately and tried to peep into her room. She also alleged that the Respondent addressed her inappropriately as “baby” and “sweety”. When confronted by the Petitioner, he admittedly did not repeat the same. However, it was submitted that there were sexual overtones in the said utterances.
The Court said, “There is a more serious aspect to the issue. The conduct and chronology of events speaks volumes against the petitioner. There were several prior charges against the petitioner by her colleagues across the board. Thus, the possibility of the petitioner using the allegation of sexual harassment as a ruse and afterthought to save her skin from such allegations cannot be ruled out. The psychological ill-health of the petitioner is corroborated not only from her affidavit-in-reply but is also borne out by several materials on record, which have been placed on record by the ICC in its compilation.”
The Court perused various facts leading to misconduct by the Petitioner such as denial to sail, misbehaviour with senior officers, having arguments and making ‘loose’ comments/insults towards her seniors etc.
The Court also held, “The history of psychological problem of the petitioner, as borne out by the records, apparently border on misandry. Hence, the possibility of malice on the part of the petitioner and a bid to protect herself from the disciplinary action she faced due to her repetitive, argumentative and indisciplined conduct cannot be ruled out.”
The court thus confirmed the impugned decision of the ICC absolving respondent of the allegations of sexual harassment made against him by the petitioner.
Cause Title: XXX v. Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaint Committee & Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Pramit Bag and Amani Kayan
Respondents: Advocates Dhiraj Trivedi, Arunava Ganguly, Arjun Ray Mukherjee and Sarda Sha.
