Sexual harassment at workplace

In the light of the lawsuit filed against wipro on sexual harassment and discrimination, it is imminent to discuss the sexual harassment law in the country. In Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court laid the guidelines to counter sexual harassment of women at workplace. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (prevention, prohibition and redressal) Act, 2013, was enacted in 2013 and it supersedes the Vishaka guidelines.
The main provisions of the Act are:
(1) it defines sexual harassment and defines ways of redressal. It also protects from false complaints and malicious prosecution.
(2) it has enlarged the scope of definition of workplace to include all formal and informal public or private work areas.
(3) it covers the concept of quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment.
(4) the committee is required to complete inquiry within 90 days. An action is to be taken by the employer or district officer within 60 days of submission of report.
(5) every employer is required to constitute an internal complaints committee which will have the powers of a civil court for collection of evidence. The complaints committee is to try for conciliation before initiating an enquiry.
(6) employers are required to provide education and sensitization programs and also provide guidelines for preventing sexual harassment.
(7) penalties range from imprisonment of one to three years and/or fine. Sexual harassment being criminal offence, the employer is required to report it.
The law has been criticized for penalties for false complaints as activists suggest that this will prevent women from complaining. However, the fact remains as the governments have not taken adequate steps for its implementation, large number of employers have not implemented it and the state of women in workplace remains the same.

Corrupt practices

India is a democratic republic and the conduct of free and fair elections is the basic structure of the Constitution. Without free and fair elections, democracy fails to function. In such a condition, various activities that vitiate the free and fair election are referred to as corrupt practices and they disqualify the candidate. The law relating to corrupt practices is covered under Section 123 of the representation of people Act,1951. The following practices are enlisted as corrupt practices which disqualify a candidate and may bar him from contesting in future elections as well.

(1) bribery- if a candidate or his agent offers to give gifts to another candidate for contesting or not contesting or withdrawing or not withdrawing candidature or to voters for voting or not voting is bribery.

In Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain, Indira Gandhi was held not guilty of bribery. Recently, Jagir Kaur was booked for bribery when 183 cases of liquor were recovered by the police.

(2) undue influence- if a candidate or his agent directly or indirectly interferences or attempts to interfere in the electoral process it amounts to undue influence.

(3) appealing on the ground of religion, race, community, caste or language- in Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain, the election symbol of cow and calf was held not to amount to be appealing in the name of religion. Similarly, in Dheeraj Pratap Singh v chief election commissioner, the symbol elephant of BSP was held not to be a religious symbol.

(3A) promotion of feeling of enmity on the grounds of religion, race, caste or language- spreading communal feelings and spreading hatred by the candidate or his agent for furtherance of his prospects or prejudicing those of any candidate.

(3B) promoting or glorification of sati- any action of promoting or glorification of sati is a corrupt practice for furtherance of his prospects or prejudicing those of any candidate.

(4) publication of false statement- publication of false statement by the candidate or his agent in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate in order to prejudice the election.

(5) hiring or procuring of vehicles- hiring or procuring vehicles by the candidate or his agent to take voters to the polling station on the day of voting amounts to corrupt practice. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain, Indira Gandhi was held not guilty of it and her election was held to be valid.

(6) incurring or authorizing expenditure in contravention of Section 77- Umlesh Yadav was disqualified for 3 years for incurring excessive expenditure.

(7) obtaining assistance of persons in service of central or state governments like gazetted officers, judges and magistrates, members of armed forces, members of police force, excise officers or other services under the government in election. In state of UP v Raj Narain, the election of Indira Gandhi was set aside by the Allahabad high court and she was barred from contesting  and holding office for 6 years.

(8) booth capturing- booth capturing amounts to forcefully gaining control of polling station and influencing the polling.

Free and fair elections is the basic structure of the Constitution and it requires that candidates and their authorized agents do not indulge into any of corrupt practices that may influence or prejudice the voters. Indulging in corrupt practices not only disqualifies a candidate in that election but may bar him from holding a public office.