IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
I.M. Quddusi, Sanju Panda, JJ.
MISS GAYATRI PANDA - APPELLANT
Versus
MAHESWAR MOHANTY AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 11-08-2009
Sexual Harassment - Human Rights Commission - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Women Assistant Marshall, alleged sexual harassment by the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly. She filed a Writ Petition against the Orissa Human Rights Commission's order, which held no credible evidence of human rights violation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Human Rights Commission's inquiry was valid and that the petitioner's allegations were not supported by credible evidence.
Issues: Violation of human rights, legality of the Commission's inquiry, denial of opportunity to cross-examine, and the Commission's recommendations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Commission's suo motu inquiry was valid under Section 12(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. It also emphasized that the Commission's recommendations were not binding on the State Government.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation without being influenced by the Commission's observations.
JUDGMENT :
I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J.
1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the Order Dated 7.8.2008 passed by the Orissa Human Rights Commission in O.H.R.C. Case No. 440 of 2008 (suo-motu)
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was serving as Women Assistant Marshall in Orissa Legislative Assembly since March, 2001. During the year 2007-08, it is alleged in the petition, that at the instance of Opp, Party No. 1, who was the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly, the Petitioner was being asked to perform duties during odd hours & to discharge functions which are not within her work schedule. It is also alleged by the Petitioner that Opposite Party No. 1 continued to sexually harass her by sending vehicles to her residence late in the night & asking through subordinates to have sexual relationships with him & to meet him when he was lonely & even he often used to make obscene indications to the Petitioner. For the last few months, behaviours of Opp. Party No. 1 towards the Petitioner was quite unbearable. As the Petitioner did not yield to the former Speaker's pressure tactics, she was placed under suspension on 7.9.2007 & again on 16.2.2008 & faced disciplinary proceedings. The Petitioner twice wrote to the Secretary of the Orissa Legislative Assembly complaining about, her sexual harassment & mental torture against Opposite Party No. 1 but to no effect. She was rather threatened with dire consequences by some anti-socials at the behest of the former Speaker & she felt very insecure. Thereafter, the Petitioner lodged F.I.R. on 27.3.2008 in Manila P.S., BBSR which was registered as Mahila P.S. Case No. 56 of 2008 Under Sections 506/507/509/34 I.P.C. In course of the investigation, police recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Chairperson of the State Commission for Women took suo motu congnizance of the matter & visited the Petitioner's house at Village-Kuhunda under Mahanga Police Station of Cuttack district on 3.4.2008 & recorded her statement & the statement of her parents in the process of inquiry. The Chairperson of the State Commission for Women was accompanied by SCW Member, Smt. Sulochana Mallik & Smt. Harapriya Nayak, Assistant Field Officer. Due to news published in the print media, the Special Secretary to Government of Orissa, Home Department vide Letter No. 17638/HRPC(O)-2/2008 dated 3.4.2008 addressed to the Secretary of the State Human Rights Commission requested for an inquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment of the Writ Petitioner by Opp. Party No. 1 The State Human Rights Commission, vide its Order Dated 4.4.2008, took suo motu action & conducted the inquiry recorded the statements. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to peruse here Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which is reproduced as under;
12. Functions of the Commission:
The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:
(a) inquire, suo motu or on a petition presented to it by a victim or any person on his behalf, into complaint of:
(i) or violation of human rights or abetment thereof;
(ii) negligence in the prevention of such violation, by a public servant;
(b) intervene in any proceeding involving any allegation of violation of human rights pending before a Court with the approval of such Court;
(c) visit, under intimation to the State Government, any jailor any other institution under the control of the State Government, where persons are detained or lodged for purpose of treatment, reformation or protection to study the living conditions of the inmates & make recommendations thereon;
(d) review the safeguards provided by or under the Constitution or any law for the time being in force for the protection of human rights & recommend measures for their effective implementation;
(e) review the factors, including acts of terrorism, that inhibit the enjoyment of human rights & recommend appropriate remedial measures;
(f) study treaties & other international instruments
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.