Sexual harassment in the workplace can take many different forms. It might come from a coworker, a boss, or a customer or client, and can include everything from unwanted contact to improper comments or jokes, or someone offering you a promotion in exchange for sexual favours.

Workplace harassment does not necessarily have to be "sexual."

It can also take the form of taunting, frightening, or disrespectful statements based on stereotypes (for example, about how certain individuals "are" or should act), or bullying someone or a group of people based on their gender, gender identity (man, woman, trans, intersex, nonbinary), or sexual preference (queer, straight, bisexual, lesbian, gay, asexual, pansexual, two-spirit etc.) Often sexual workplace harassment is motivated by both sex and another factor, such as race or ethnicity. A woman of race, for example, may experience workplace harassment differently from a white female coworker. Because of her gender and colour or ethnicity, she may be the subject of abusive or aggressive conduct.

Examples of potentially harassing behaviour include, but are not limited to, making unsolicited demands for sexual favours or dates.

· making improper comments about someone's physique or appearance making disparaging remarks about or mocking someone or all persons of a particular gender or sexual orientation (for example, "women are..." or "gay people are...")

· employing insults based on gender or sexual orientation (swear words)

· creating a crude, offensive, or graphic sex or sexual act jokes

·

o It is important to note that workplace harassment occurs even if the behaviour is not directed explicitly at you. For example, if you are a trans person and overhear a group of coworkers making insulting jokes or slurs about trans people (in general), such type of behaviour may still be deemed "harassment," even if they are not speaking to or about you personally.

It doesn't matter if the person doing the harassing thinks it's OK, harmless, not sexual, or welcomed (i.e., they think you like it or don't have a problem with it) for something to be considered sexual workplace harassment; it doesn't matter whether people doing the harassing likes to think it's all Ok, inoffensive, not sexual, or accepted (i.e., they believe you like it and don't have an issue with it). It is still workplace harassment if the behaviour is unwanted or insulting to you.

It's also considered workplace harassment if you don't quickly say "stop" or something else to let the offender know that what they're saying/doing is unacceptable. For example, you could laugh along with an insensitive joke, or accept a hug because you're caught off guard in the moment, or because you're afraid the person will respond negatively if you don't. If the harasser is a supervisor or someone in a position of authority over you, you may be worried that speaking out or expressing "no" may jeopardise your employment. All of these are common reactions to harassment. Responding in this manner does not make the harassment any less severe, nor does it make you any more accountable.

What are the sexual harassment law?

The sexual harassment law to Prevent Sexual Harassment at Workplace was enacted 16 years after the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997 (7) SCC 323), which was filed by NGOs in response to a violent gang-rape of a social worker at work. In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment at work violates women's fundamental rights (including equality, the freedom to perform any profession, and the right to live a dignified life) and is discriminatory toward women. In the utter lack of regulatory protective measures, the Court stated that a "effective alternative mechanism" was required to prevent violations of these fundamental rights in the workplace and to address the issues and fill the legislative vacuum. In the same case, the Supreme Court also laid down certain guidelines that made it mandatory for every employer to provide for a mechanism to redress complaints pertaining to sexual harassment law at work ("Vishaka Guidelines"). The Court further declared that the Vishaka Guidelines were to be recognised as a declaration of sexual harassment law and would be in effect until equivalent protective legislation was passed by Parliament.

In view of the preceding decision, the initial steps toward enacting a sexual harassment law to protect women from sexual harassment at work were taken in 2007, when the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2007, was submitted in Parliament. This Bill, however, never saw the light of day. The Protection of Women Against sexual harassment law at Workplace Bill, 2010 (the "Original Bill") was introduced in Lok Sabha on December 7, 2010. It was alluded to a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, led by Shri Oscar Fernandes ("Standing Committee"), for examination on December 30, 2010, and the Standing Committee issued its report in December 2011.

Following the report, the Original Bill was amended, including the title, which was changed to Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Bill, 2013 (the "Bill"). The change in the title clearly indicates the Ministry's goal in drafting this sexual harassment law, which is to focus not only on resolving accusations of sexual harassment but also on prevention and prohibition of sexual workplace harassment.

As previously stated, because several bills related to sexual workplace harassment prevention were always pending in either House of Parliament (the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha), Medha Kotwal Lele, coordinator of Aalochana, a centre for documentation and research on women, filed a petition filed showcasing a number of existing cases of sexual workplace harassment and attempting to argue that the Vishaka Guidelines were not successfully implemented. The Supreme Court was particularly asked to evaluate whether or not individual state governments have implemented the Vishaka Guidelines' modifications to process and policy.

The Supreme Court then declared in Medha Kotwal Lele vs. Union of India, AIR 2013 SC 93 that the Vishaka Guidelines must be applied in form, substance, and spirit to assist achieve gender parity by ensuring women may work with dignity, decency, and proper respect. It was said that the Vishaka Guidelines compel both employers and other responsible individuals or organisations to follow them and to assist in the prevention of sexual workplace harassment of women. Furthermore, the Court found that a number of governments were falling short in this respect and reaffirmed that all kinds of violence must be avoided. It argued that "lip service, empty platitudes, inactive and inadequate legislation with sloppy enforcement are insufficient for sincere and genuine upliftment of our half most valuable people — women."

This case also stated that state governments must make the necessary amendments to the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and Standing Orders within two months of the date of the judgement and entrusted the Bar Council of India with the responsibility of ensuring that all bar associations in the country and persons registered with the State Bar Councils follow the Vishaka Guidelines.

Conclusion

To counter the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace, POSH training and posh act implementation are very crucial for employees. With the assistance of MUDS Mangement, employees can complete their PoSH training at very nominal fees.