Supreme Court refuses to entertain PIL to bring political parties under POSH Act
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a PIL seeking to bring major political parties within the purview of the 2013 POSH Act, which aims to protect women from sexual harassment at workplaces, saying the matter was for Parliament to decide.The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act came into being in 2013 to protect women from sexual harassment at workplaces and ensuring a safe work environment.
A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the PIL filed by Yogamaya M G seeking to bring major political parties under the ambit of the POSH Act.At the outset, senior advocate Shobha Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, sought a direction to treat political parties as "employers" under the POSH Act, saying it will require them to constitute internal complaints committees (ICCs) to address sexual harassment allegations."This is a matter in the domain of Parliament. How can we interfere," the CJI asked, adding that the petitioner can get some women parliamentarians on board and present a private bill in Parliament.
Gupta said Parliament has not taken any steps on the issue.Moreover, the petitioner was not seeking any fresh legislation but merely an interpretation of the existing provisions of the POSH Act to include political parties within its ambit, she said.She also referred to a 2021 Kerala High Court judgment, which held that political parties are not required to constitute ICCs under the POSH Act.The CJI said the high court judgment may be challenged independently.The lawyer then sought the liberty to challenge the high court judgement."The learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the petition with a further liberty to take such steps as advised in law," the bench said in its order.
Besides the Centre and the chief election commissioner, the plea made political outfits including the Congress, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, Trinamool Congress, Nationalist Congress Party, Bahujan Samaj Party and the Aam Aadmi Party parties in the petition.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
2 Samajwadi Party leaders booked over PDA Pathshala, school merger protest
An FIR was registered against Samajwadi Party leader Rachna Singh Gautam on Friday for allegedly conducting an unauthorised 'PDA Pathshala' (classroom) outside a government primary school at Shahampur Garhi village in Bilhaur development block of Kanpur. A PDA Pathshala started by SP in Uttar Pradesh. (SOURCED) Police have also registered a case against a Samajwadi Party leader and a dozen people in Bhadohi for allegedly involving schoolchildren in protest against the Uttar Pradesh government's decision to merge schools with low enrolment, officials said. The 'PDA Pathshala' in Bilhaur violated multiple regulations, including provisions under the IT Act and the Right to Education (RTE) Act, officials said. Gautam supposedly held such 'classes' in other villages as well. Gautam organised the 'pathshala' without prior approval from local authorities, and continued with the programme despite objections from the school administration, according to the complaint of the block education officer (BEO). Children were allegedly taught political slogans and references associated with the SP's PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) campaign in the 'pathshala' held in the vicinity of a government school. BEO Ravi Kumar Singh confirmed that photographs and videos of the event had been submitted to the district administration. In the visuals, students are seen reciting phrases linked to the SP, while some videos also allegedly show incorrect basic educational content being taught. These materials were circulated on social media by Gautam herself, Singh said. The BEO said, 'Running such parallel educational setups without any official recognition or permission is illegal. No arrangement can operate alongside a government institution without due process. What was done here is unauthorised.' Kanpur's additional DCP West Kapil Dev Singh stated that a case had been registered under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the IT Act. 'The matter is under investigation,' he said. The FIR includes charges related to misuse of a government facility, spreading misinformation, and political exploitation of children. In a statement, Gautam alleged that the FIR was politically motivated. 'The government is trying to silence voices who are working for marginalised children. I will continue holding such classes. The closure of schools affects the PDA children the most,' she said. In Bhadohi, district magistrate Shailesh Kumar said 40 students of the primary school in Sikandra village under Aurai block were shifted to a vacant anganwadi centre in nearby Pilkhani village -- around 800 metres away -- with the consent of their parents. He said local Samajwadi Party leader Anjani Saroj, along with her supporters, visited the anganwadi centre on Wednesday and distributed pencils, erasers and other items to the children. Later, she allegedly lured the students with toffees, handed them banners and posters and led them in a protest march back to the Sikandra primary school. The matter was probed by the chief development officer and the sub-divisional magistrate, following which the school's headmaster lodged a complaint with the Chauri police station, the DM said. A case was registered against Saroj and others on Thursday evening, officials said. In view of the alleged negligence in the matter, a departmental inquiry has been ordered against Ramakant Singroul, assistant education officer of Aurai, he added. Station house officer of Chauri, Ramesh Kumar, said a case has been lodged under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita based on a complaint by headmaster Sabhajit Yadav. (With agencies)
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Malegaon blast case rested on shifting sand: Court
MUMBAI: A day after a special Mumbai court acquitted all seven accused in the high-profile, 2008 Malegaon blast case, the 1,034-page judgment, made public on Friday, delivered a sweeping rebuke to both the agencies that had investigated the case. The collection of blast-site debris also occurred without forensic oversight, compromising evidentiary value, the judgement noted (HT Photo) 'I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter,' the judgement noted. Referring to the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that had probed the case, Special Judge AK Lahoti ruled that the case was built on 'suspicion, conjecture, and flawed assumptions', adding that 'suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof'. The acquittal of the seven accused came 17 years after a bomb exploded near a mosque at a crowded intersection in Malegaon, killing six people and injuring 95 others on September 29, 2008. It was alleged to be the result of a right-wing terror plot. Among the accused were former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt Col Prasad Purohit and Major (Retd) Ramesh Shivaji Upadhyay. In its judgement, the special NIA court highlighted serious irregularities, contradictions and procedural misconduct by the ATS and NIA. The accused had been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act. The court found the charges unsustainable due to unreliable witness testimony, inadmissible evidence and irreconcilable differences between the ATS and NIA investigations. At the centre of the case was the prosecution's claim that a right-wing extremist conspiracy, hatched by members of Abhinav Bharat in 2007-08, had led to the blast. The ATS alleged that Purohit had set up Abhinav Bharat to turn India into a 'Hindu Rashtra', procured RDX from Kashmir, and, along with others, planned the attack as 'revenge against Muslims'. They also claimed the motorcycle used in the blast belonged to Thakur. The court found these theories legally untenable and procedurally compromised. A number of key witnesses either retracted their statements or contradicted themselves in court. Among them were Lt Col RK Shrivastava, who had implicated Purohit in inflammatory meetings; Major Ramesh Gadge, who described Abhinav Bharat's activities but later watered down his account; and Bhavesh Patel, Rajendra Shende and Rakesh Dhawde – all considered crucial to establishing the alleged conspiracy. Their reversal under oath proved fatal to the case. 'The NIA, despite having ample opportunity, did not take any steps against the hostile witnesses for giving false evidence before the court. This inaction raises serious questions on the commitment to secure justice,' the court said. It further noted that 'key witnesses pertaining to the conspiracy have not supported the prosecution,' leading the court to conclude that the case rested on 'shifting sand'. The contradictions between the ATS and NIA approaches drew special scrutiny. The ATS had charged the accused under MCOCA, citing continuity with previous blast cases. In contrast, the NIA's 2016 supplementary chargesheet discarded that link, sought discharge for several accused, and altogether withdrew MCOCA. The court held that this internal inconsistency corroded the credibility of the entire case: 'Two parallel investigations cannot proceed on divergent foundational premises. The contradiction between the ATS and NIA approaches creates serious doubt on the prosecution's reliability and coherence.' The court also dismantled the material and forensic evidence. Despite the gravity of the crime, the prosecution presented no fingerprints, DNA or dump-data linking the accused to the crime scene. Crucially, the court found 'nothing on record to show that Purohit had brought the RDX from Kashmir', as alleged by the ATS. Even the motorcycle alleged to belong to Thakur failed to connect her to the crime, with the court noting she had renounced material life two years prior and no longer had control over her possessions. Further procedural lapses were flagged in multiple instances. For accused Sameer Kulkarni, the court noted that his arrest-related paperwork was delayed and falsified: 'Signatures were taken on blank papers and documents were backdated. This is nothing short of manipulation of the criminal justice process'. The collection of blast-site debris also occurred without forensic oversight, compromising evidentiary value, the judgement noted. The court strongly criticised the prosecution for failing to obtain the required sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA from the competent Central government authority. 'No explanation is offered by the prosecution as to why the requisite sanction under Section 45 of UAPA was not obtained,' the court remarked, adding that the absence rendered the entire chargesheet 'void-ab-initio'. Additionally, the court ruled that the acts alleged did not meet the statutory definition of a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA.
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC stays HC verdict restoring protected status to Kanjurmarg landfill
MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Bombay High Court verdict that had restored the status of the Kanjurmarg dumping ground to a 'protected forest'. The stay order has paved the way for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to continue to dump solid waste at Mumbai's only active dump yard, where around 6,000 to 10,000 tonnes of garbage is dumped every day. The stay order has paved the way for the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to continue to dump solid waste at Mumbai's only active dump yard The Supreme Court order was delivered on a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the state government, challenging the May 2 verdict of the high court, which had set aside a 2009 decision of the BMC to denotify the protected forest status of the land, so that they could use it as a dumping yard. On Friday, a division bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran took note of the submissions by solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state, that the landfill had been incorrectly notified as a protected forest. As a result, the state contended, it had de-notified the 118 hectares in question in 2009, so that the land could be used as a dumping ground. 'We will stay the order,' said the apex court. When a lawyer representing the state government opposed the order, the bench asked, 'You tell us where the garbage can be dumped now.' The original PIL, filed in 2013 by non-profit Vanashakti, had challenged the environmental clearances given for the setting up of the landfill on protected forest land. It argued that the 2009 de-notification of the plot violated procedure as noted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. When restoring the protected forest status of the landfill in May, the high court had also given the BMC three months to comply with its order. The state then filed the SLP in the Supreme Court on July 26, arguing, 'The impugned judgment (…) would have a disastrous effect on the city of Mumbai, as there being no other similar waste disposal ground and landfill. If… it is to be discontinued, the entire city of Mumbai would be deprived of a solid waste dumping area and its residents will have to suffer unnecessary and untold hardships and major health risks.' It further clarified that only 20.76 hectares of the 141.77 hectares that were de-notified had a mangrove forest on them, and that they had not been impacted by or included in the waste-processing site in the decade and a half that the BMC had been using it. The SP argued that the plot's original notification as a protected forest was erroneous. Stalin D, director, Vanashakti, said they had been provided with a copy of the SLP on Thursday, only a day before the hearing in the Supreme Court, leaving little time to have their lawyers reach Delhi or prepare for their submissions in court. 'The SC stayed the HC order within two minutes, without hearing us or opening our file. We fought for 15 years against all odds, got a good judgement, only to have it overturned in a few minutes, where we weren't given a fair chance,' said Stalin.
