Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 15201/2023, CM APPL. 27067/2024

HON’BLE JUSTICES Mr. V. KAMESWAR RAO and Mr. RAVINDER DUDEJA


Dt. 20.05.2024

KHAJAN SINGH
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Is there a right to appeal a decision made under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace Act, 2013?

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,


2013— this case centers on challenging decisions made by the Internal Complaints Committee
regarding workplace sexual harassment. The key question is whether someone can appeal these
decisions under a specific act (Sexual Harassment Act of 2013) or if another set of rules (Central Civil
Services Rules of 1965) solely applies. Held, The Court decided that under the Rules of 1965,
specifically Rule 15, a representation to the Disciplinary Authority is considered an adequate
remedy equivalent to an appeal under Section 18(1) of the Act of 2013. This interpretation
ensures a harmonious construction of the provisions, avoiding any conflict between the Rules
and the Act, and maintains the procedural integrity within the administrative framework.
[Para 46-47]

Important Points:

 Precedents from Dinesh Chandra Mishra and Dr. P.S. Malik cases, which have
interpreted the relationship between the Act of 2013 and the Rules of 1965.

 The petitioner's argument about the need for an independent judicial body to review
the CLICC's findings, contrasting with the respondents' reliance on administrative
procedures under the Rules of 1965.

 The interpretation of Section 18 of the Act of 2013 regarding the right to appeal to a
Court or Tribunal.

 The CLICC's report, following allegations of sexual harassment, was submitted to the
Disciplinary Authority, which sought advice from the Union Public Service
Commission (UPSC). The petitioner was given the opportunity to respond to this
advice, and the matter now hinges on whether the internal procedures under the Rules
of 1965 provide adequate recourse as contemplated under the Act of 2013.

You might also like