Introduction:

In the case of R Mohanakrishnan v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and Others (W.P.No.10707 of 2024), the Madras High Court tackled the issue of continuous sexual harassment in the workplace. The petitioner, Superintendent of Police Mohanakrishnan, challenged an order by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) recommending disciplinary action against him. Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that continuous sexual harassment, unlike a single inappropriate remark, constitutes ongoing misconduct with a new cause of action arising every day until the situation is redressed.

Arguments:

Mohanakrishnan, represented by Mr. S. Sivakumar, argued that the complaint against him was time-barred since it was lodged in 2022, four years after the alleged incident in 2018. He cited Section 9 of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, which mandates that complaints must be filed within three months of the incident. He also contended that the ICC did not adhere to principles of natural justice by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine the victim and witnesses and delayed providing him a copy of the complaint.

Conversely, the state, represented by Mr. Stalin Abhimanyu, Additional Government Pleader, maintained that Mohanakrishnan had harassed several female employees, and the nature of the offense should be considered ongoing. The state argued that the limitation period did not apply in cases of continuous harassment. Additionally, they noted that the copies of the complaint were served to Mohanakrishnan, and the decision to prevent direct cross-examination was to protect the sensitivity of the matter and the victims involved.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy delivered a nuanced judgement, emphasizing the gravity and continuous nature of sexual harassment. He asserted that serious offenses causing prolonged mental trauma and stress fit the definition of continuous sexual harassment. The court highlighted the severe impact of such harassment on women’s physical and mental health, leading to depression, self-doubt, withdrawal from employment, and fear of being labeled as troublemakers.

The court found merit in the state’s argument, agreeing that continuous harassment constitutes a new cause of action each day. Therefore, the complaint was not time-barred. The court dismissed Mohanakrishnan’s claims regarding procedural lapses, noting that timelines for action are designed to ensure promptness and are not grounds to avoid punishment.

However, the court acknowledged the need for fairness in the inquiry process. While upholding the ICC’s decision to protect the victim from direct cross-examination by the delinquent, the court directed that Mohanakrishnan should be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The court remitted the matter back to the ICC to continue the inquiry and instructed it to complete the process within 60 days, conducting day-to-day proceedings as far as possible. Following the ICC’s report, the disciplinary committee was directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously