Every day is a matter of learning. Hearing of submissions in this case, we may say, was a matter of further understanding the sensitivities involved in a controversy of the present nature. We may venture to demonstrate this, by noticing a verbal exchange, during the course of hearing, between the counsel for the Petitioner and that for the High Court. While the learned Counsel representing the High Court was on "his" legs, learned Counsel for the Petitioner interjected to express "her" point of view. All through, during the process of hearing, submissions were advanced in a lively and respectful manner, and pointedly on the subject under consideration. Feeling that the thought being projected by the learned Counsel was being disturbed by the intervention, the Bench accordingly exhorted learned Counsel, to go on unmindful of the interruption. Learned Counsel for the High Court, well-meaning and deferential as he always is, responded by observing, "The interjections by the learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner, are always delightful". Learned senior Counsel for the Petitioner, had serious objection to the term, "delightful" used, with reference to "her". She questioned, the use of the term, "delightful" by posing to the learned senior Counsel, whether similar interjections by men, were also considered by him as delightful. Why then, she questioned, should "her" interjection be found "delightful". In expressing her view, she went on to describe the response of the learned senior Counsel as "sexually coloured". Having given our thoughtful consideration to the response, of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we may only say, that she may well be right. There is a lot to be learnt, from what she innocuously conveyed. Her sensitivity to the issue, one may confess, brought out to us, a wholly different understanding on the subject. It is, therefore, that we have remarked above, that the evaluation of a charge of sexual harassment, would depend on the manner in which it is perceived. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits. Whether the perception of the harassed individual, was conveyed to the person accused, would be very material, in a case falling in the realm of over-sensitivity. In that, it would not be open to him thereafter, to defend himself by projecting that he had not sexually harassed the person concerned, because in his understanding the alleged action was unoffending.
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE 'X' V/S REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS, decided on Thursday, December 18, 2014.
|
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 792 OF 2014
Citation;(2015) 4 SCC91,AIR2015SC645,
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment