Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The PIL raised concerns that members of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) [constituted under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013] do not have protection from arbitrary and retaliatory actions such as arbitrary termination at private workplaces.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
Delhi Court observed that it is crucial for Delhi Commission for Women to focus on substantive actions rather than superficial gestures just for the sake of publicity and bringing the name in newspaper or to find fault in the other institution when equal responsibility lies with them also.
If the Court would allow such an interpretation, then this provision would become redundant, and a floodgate of law graduates, who may not be enrolled with the bar councils to become an ‘advocate’ but are still practicing law, would pour in. The purpose of keeping the proceedings fact-based and free expert legal advisory, would be lost.
Delhi High Court: C Hari Shankar, J. opined that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply in respect
Chhattisgarh High Court: Narendra Kumar Vyas J. allowed the petition and remarked “any victim of sexual harassment at workplace should not run
Delhi High Court: Noting allegations against an employer with regard to the sexual harassment Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., expressed that, “…instead of providing
by Charvi Devprakash†
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of A.M. Shaffique and Gopinath P., JJ., while observing a matter in regard to sexual harassment at