NCW seeks report on alleged exploitation of women staffers by senior Nashik ZP officer
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
NCW took note of complaints filed with Nashik ZP CEO Ashima Mittal, who had set up a Vishakha Committee to investigate the allegations against the senior officer heading one of the departments.
NCW chairperson Vijaya Rahatkar has directed the principal secretary, rural development department and state Panchayat Raj to take immediate action against the accused, initiate legal proceedings under the POSH Act, and ensure protection for the women.
She also asked for an action-taken report within three days, stated a post put out on the official NCW handle on X.
ZP CEO Ashima Mittal said, "NCW has sought the report from the state, and Nashik ZP will provide all the details sought by state govt."
The ZP CEO received an anonymous complaint stating that 30 women were allegedly physically and mentally harassed by the officer concerned who would keep them waiting for hours together.
"We received the complaint and formed the Vishakha Committee in Nashik ZP to start the inquiry into the incident. The committee has a period of 90 days to complete the inquiry and submit its detailed report. We will give time to the women to make their statements, claims and provide evidence as required before the committee, which will look into all aspects before taking any decision.
We will take into account the committee's report before initiating any action," the officer said.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The officer claimed of receiving a pen drive and a letter indicating the harassment of 30 women in the ZP. The pen drive allegedly contained some material to substantiate the claim, and all this is now being investigated by the Vishakha Committee. The officer concerned has been sent on compulsory leave, the officer added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
2 days ago
- Mint
Journalist Sneha Barve gets fresh death threats, CPJ urges CM Devendra Fadnavis to act against accused
Three weeks after the brutal assault while reporting on illegal construction near Pune, journalist Sneha Barve has received fresh death threats. The threats were reportedly issued on July 24. Now, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has urged Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis to take immediate action to protect the journalist. 'It is outrageous that journalist Sneha Barve, who was nearly killed for exposing wrongdoing, has been threatened once again, while the main suspect in her assault walks free,' said Kunāl Majumder, CPJ's India representative, reported 'Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis must urgently guarantee Sneha Barve's safety to send a clear message that attacks on the press will not be tolerated and ensure those responsible are swiftly prosecuted,' Majumder also said. According to CPJ report, Prashant Pandurang Morde – an accused in the assault case, accosted Barve outside her office in Manchar, Pune district and threatened her, saying: 'This time, we should finish the matter for good.' On July 18, Prashant Morde - son of key accused Pandurang Sakharam Morde, went to the office of Barve's father and threatened to harm the entire family, the journalist told CPJ. Barve is the founder of YouTube-based news channel 'Samarth Bharat Pariwar'. On July 4, she was attacked by a group of men while she was reporting on alleged illegal construction on disputed land in Manchar. The incident was caught on camera. Its viral video sparked outrage among the people. The National Commission for Women (NCW) had taken suo motu cognisance of the shocking incident. NCW Chairperson Vijay Rahatkar strongly condemned the attack and directed the concerned police officials to conduct a fair and time-bound investigation into the matter. She had also instructed authorities to ensure that the main accused is arrested and that the survivor is provided with appropriate medical and psychological assistance.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Journalist Sneha Barve receives death threats days after assault while reporting illegal construction
Journalist Sneha Barve has received fresh death threats just days after she was allegedly assaulted while reporting on illegal land construction in Manchar near Pune. The attack and repeated threats have triggered concern among press freedom advocates and women's rights bodies, prompting calls for urgent intervention by the Maharashtra government. Sneha Barve was allegedly brutally assaulted with a wooden stick while reporting on illegal construction near Pune.(X/@sunshine_rahul) She was attacked on July 4 while covering illegal land construction in Manchar, near Pune. Just three weeks later, on July 24, she received another death threat. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and the National Commission for Women (NCW) have both demanded immediate protection for Barve and arrest of the prime accused, who remains at large despite being named in the police investigation. 'It is outrageous that journalist Sneha Barve, who was nearly killed for exposing wrongdoing, has been threatened once again, while the main suspect in her assault walks free,' said Kunal Majumder, CPJ's India representative. 'Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis must urgently guarantee Sneha Barve's safety to send a clear message that attacks on the press will not be tolerated and ensure those responsible are swiftly prosecuted.' Journalist describes the attack Barve told CPJ that on July 24, Prashant Pandurang Morde - who was arrested for his role in the earlier attack on the journalist - accosted her outside her office in the town of Manchar and threatened her, saying, 'This time, we should finish the matter for good.' On July 4, Barve, founder of the Samarth Bharat Pariwar YouTube-based news channel, was attacked by a group of men while reporting on alleged illegal construction on disputed land in Manchar, Pune district. A video of the attack shows a man striking Barwe with a wooden rod before she loses consciousness. Five suspects were arrested but released on bail three days later. The man accused of wielding the rod, Pandurang Sakharam Morde, a businessman with alleged political connections, was named in the First Information Report opening the investigation, but has not been arrested. On July 18, Prashant Morde, son of Pandurang Sakharam Morde, went to Barve's father's office and threatened to harm the entire family, the journalist told CPJ. In a complaint to police, Barve said the three suspects had been collecting information about her family and requested police protection. Women's panel concerned after attack The National Commission for Women (NCW) has also taken suo motu cognisance of the attack. According to reports received by the Commission, Barve was left unconscious after the assault. Despite the gravity of the incident, the prime accused has not yet been arrested, raising serious concerns about the handling of the case, the NCW said. NCW Chairperson Vijay Rahatkar strongly condemned the attack and has directed the concerned police officials to conduct a fair and time-bound investigation. She has also instructed authorities to ensure that the main accused is arrested immediately and that the survivor is provided with appropriate medical and psychological assistance.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Vishaka still matters: The Bombay HC judgement
On July 7, 2025, the Bombay High Court delivered its judgment in UNS Women Legal Association (Regd.) vs. Bar Council of India. The petitioners had sought directions for the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to consider forming the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). While dealing with the issue, the Court held that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH) do not apply to the advocates. The Court had reasoned that there exists no employer-employee relationship between the Bar Councils and the advocates, whereas, actions if any intended can be dealt by disciplinary committee of Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. Law (Pexel) The High Court's ruling has created uncertainty. The legal profession today faces critical questions. If not the PoSH Act, then what? How can the legal field be made a safe space for women advocates? And when grievances inevitably arise, where do they find recourse? The answer of the issue posed in UNS Women Legal Association was not all that easy to arrive at. The High Court has applied a narrow interpretation of the PoSH Act. To understand its far reaching impact, it is imperative to understand the history of PoSH Act. Unlike most laws, the law relating to prevention of sexual harassment did not originate in Parliament. It was born out of judicial intervention, following the brutal gang rape of a social worker in a village in Rajasthan, which shook the collective conscience of the nation. It led to the filing of a writ petition in the Supreme Court as a class action seeking enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. For the first time, the Supreme Court was confronted with the critical task of addressing the pervasive issue of sexual harassment at the workplace. In its judgement in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court declared its intention i.e., to protect all working women regardless of their workplace. Essentially, the Vishaka guidelines were never confined to traditional employer-employee relationships. The Supreme Court took an expansive view of the term 'working women,' extending protection to all women engaged in any form of work, irrespective of the nature or structure of their workplace. The guidelines carried a sunset clause. They were meant to lapse once appropriate legislation was enacted. However, the guidelines were meant to be continued till the Vishaka guidelines replaced with suitable legislation. Nearly 15 years later, in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012), the Supreme Court again emphasised that the implementation of Vishaka should be true to its substance. The Court observed with concern that women lawyers still lacked a proper grievance redressal mechanism. It directed the Bar Council of India to ensure that all persons registered with State Bar Councils followed the Vishaka guidelines. Further, in Binu Tamta v. Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court further advanced this jurisprudence by formulating the Gender Sensitisation and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013, with the aim of making the Supreme Court premises a safer place for women advocates. In this backdrop, the Bombay High Court's recent judgment is concerning. While it acknowledges both Vishaka and Medha Kotwal Lele, it falters to reckon with the directions contained in those judgements. The High Court's reasoning is premised on the belief that the enactment of the PoSH Act rendered Vishaka obsolete due to its sunset clause. However, the Vishaka guidelines still continues to hold good for all working women, who are otherwise not protected by the PoSH Act. The sunset clause did not extinguish Vishaka; it still shines; it merely defers to a legislative framework that meets or exceeds its standards. Where such a framework is found wanting or inapplicable, Vishaka continues. Compounding this, it has been suggested in the judgement that women advocates can pursue disciplinary remedies under the Advocates Act, 1961. A similar issue was dealt with in Medha Kotwal Lele. It led the Supreme Court to direct the government to amend service rules and incorporate the Vishaka guidelines since service rules were observed to be incapable of dealing with complaints of sexual harassment. In sum, the judgment raises serious and far-reaching concerns for all working women, beyond the legal profession. It affects all working women who may not be working in the realm of traditional employer-employee model. Consider gig workers for example. India has 7.7 million of them, yet legal recourse in instances of sexual harassment remains unclear. Companies call them 'partners' instead of employees to avoid social security benefits, which also ends up taking away their rights under the PoSH Act. As work patterns continue to evolve, it must follow with an expansive interpretation of the PoSH Act in line with the Vishaka guidelines. Without which, it risks becoming irrelevant to the majority of women entering the modern workforce. Therefore, even though as per the High Court's Judgement, women advocates do not have recourse to PoSH Act, any working women who is not covered under PoSH can still resort to the Vishaka guidelines and the employer or other responsible person is duty bound to abide by the constitutional mandate of providing a safe workplace. This article is authored by Anindita Pujari, senior advocate and Shaileshwar Yadav, advocate, Supreme Court.
