In Brief
This case concerns implementation gaps in the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Court held that the Act establishes a mandatory tiered framework where District Officers, appointed under Section 5, are pivotal coordinators obligated to constitute Local Committees and appoint Nodal Officers. Despite the word "may" in Section 5, the context and mandatory duties in Section 20 require District Officers' appointment to be treated as obligatory. States showed lack of uniformity in implementation—some assigned duties to wrong departments or failed to appoint specific District Officers. The Court directed: personal appointment of District Officers within 4 weeks; constitution of Local Committees in every district; appointment of Nodal Officers at block/ward levels; collection and consolidation of annual compliance reports; mandatory training for District Officers and committee members; and Rules amendments identifying fine-collecting authorities. The Court emphasized that awareness campaigns alone are insufficient without the foundational institutional framework. The matter was adjourned to February 2024 for compliance verification.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.