Comment Regarding Length And Volume Of Hair Not Sexual Harassment: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court quashed the Order of the Industrial Court which had upheld the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee report in a sexual harassment at workplace case.
The Bombay High Court held that passing a comment regarding the length and volume of a woman’s hair is not sexual harassment.
The Court quashed the Order of the Industrial Court which had upheld the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report in a sexual harassment at workplace case. The Court remarked that the report was “clearly vague” as the same was drawn without discussing the evidence on record.
A Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V Marne held that “though the first two incidents relate to allegations against the Petitioner and even if the allegations are taken to be proved, concrete inference of cause of sexual harassment to the complainant cannot be drawn.”
Advocate Sana Raees Khan appeared for the Petitioner.
Brief Facts
The case arose from a complaint filed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The ICC report cited three broad allegations against the Petitioner, including a remark about a female employee’s hair and an inappropriate comment directed at a male colleague in the presence of female employees.
The Petitioner challenged the ICC’s findings before the Industrial Court which dismissed his appeal.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that the first allegation, concerning the Petitioner’s comment on the colleague’s hair and singing a song, did not amount to sexual harassment.
“So far as the first incident is concerned, the same relates to passing of comment by the Petitioner with regard to length and volume of the complainant’s hair and he singing a song relating to her hair. Considering the nature of comment allegedly made by the Petitioner towards the complainant it becomes difficult to believe that the same was made with an intent of causing any sexual harassment to the complainant,” it stated.
The Court explained, “She herself never perceived the comment as sexual harassment when the comment was made. The comment was made on 11 June 2022. However the WhatsApp conversation between the Petitioner and the complainant post 11 June 2022 would indicate that the Petitioner was in fact motivating the complainant with regard to performance of her work and the complainant had expressed gratitude towards the efforts of the Petitioner. Therefore even if the allegations qua Incident No.1 is accepted as proved, it becomes difficult to hold that the Petitioner has committed any act of sexual harassment.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In my view, therefore the report of the ICC is clearly vague as the same is drawn without discussing the evidence on record. Most importantly, the ICC has not considered the issue whether the allegations levelled against the Petitioner in first two incidents really constitute sexual harassment to the complainant… In my therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court is indefensible and liable to be set aside.”
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the decision of the Member Industrial Court.
Cause Title: Vinod Narayan Kachave v. The Presiding Officer (ICC) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:12952)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sana Raees Khan, Juhi Kadu and Sanskriti Yagnik
