SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1062

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DIPANKAR DATTA
Initiatives for Inclusion Foundation – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR Ms. Shobha Gupta, AOR Mr. Aditya Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Jessy Kurian, Adv. Ms. Tarjana Rai, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Suhseni Sen, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chava, Adv. Mr. Rustam Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, AOR Ms. Annie Mittal, Adv. Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K. Joy, Adv. Mr. Abraham Mathew, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Adv. Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv. Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Sugandh Rathor, Adv. Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Wrick Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Aditi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Mohan, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Sri Harsha Peechara, Adv. Mr. Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu, Adv. Ms. Pallavi, Adv. Ms. Kriti Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Abbas, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv. Mr. Mohit Prasad, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal , AOR Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Deepak Thukral, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Dr. Monika Gusain, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Priyanshu Malik, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Varun Varma, Adv. Mr. M. Bangaraswamy, Adv. Mr. S. Spandana Reddy, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Adv. Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Devvrat Singh Naruka, Adv. Ms. Harsha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Maneeshpathak, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Kabir Shankar Bose, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Rachana Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bharpur Singh, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Ms. Rekha Dayal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Neeraj Singh, Adv. Ms. Yamini Sharma, Adv. Ritika Raj, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dewivedi, Adv. Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The writ-petitioner organisation, approaches this court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking issuance of appropriate orders directing the respondents [Union government, and each State/UT government – collectively referred to as ‘respondent-state’] to take steps for implementing the provisions of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 read with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 [hereafter “Act/POSH Act” or “Act” and “Rules/POSH Rules” respectively]. The detailed claims1[The following abbreviations have been used in the writ petition, as well as in this judgment hereafter: “LCC” or “LC” mean ‘Local Committee’ (as per Act 23/2016 which amended ‘local complaints committee’ to ‘local committee’); and “ICC” or “IC” to mean ‘Internal Complaints Committee’] are extracted verbatim:

    “1. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction as may be necessary:-

    a. Directing all the Respondents, i.e. Union of I


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top