<p class="title">The Supreme Court has said that sexual harassment at the workplace is an "affront" to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality, her right to live with dignity and to practice any profession or carry out any occupation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, was enacted to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at the workplace as well as for prevention and redressal of such complaints.</p>.<p class="bodytext">"Sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 and her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as her right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business," the bench said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In a judgment delivered on February 25, the top court upheld the verdict of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had quashed an order of transfer of a woman bank employee who had levelled allegations of sexual harassment against her senior officer.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court noted woman officer, during her posting at Indore branch of the bank, had made repeated communications to authorities alleging corruption and serious irregularities in the maintenance of accounts of liquor contractors.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“There can be no manner of doubt that the respondent (woman officer) has been victimized. This is symptomatic of a carrot and sticks policy adopted to suborn the dignity of a woman who is aggrieved by unfair treatment at her workplace. The law cannot countenance this. The order of transfer was an act of unfair treatment and is vitiated by malafides," it said.</p>
<p class="title">The Supreme Court has said that sexual harassment at the workplace is an "affront" to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality, her right to live with dignity and to practice any profession or carry out any occupation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi said the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, was enacted to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at the workplace as well as for prevention and redressal of such complaints.</p>.<p class="bodytext">"Sexual harassment at the workplace is an affront to the fundamental rights of a woman to equality under Articles 14 and 15 and her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as her right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business," the bench said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">In a judgment delivered on February 25, the top court upheld the verdict of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had quashed an order of transfer of a woman bank employee who had levelled allegations of sexual harassment against her senior officer.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The court noted woman officer, during her posting at Indore branch of the bank, had made repeated communications to authorities alleging corruption and serious irregularities in the maintenance of accounts of liquor contractors.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“There can be no manner of doubt that the respondent (woman officer) has been victimized. This is symptomatic of a carrot and sticks policy adopted to suborn the dignity of a woman who is aggrieved by unfair treatment at her workplace. The law cannot countenance this. The order of transfer was an act of unfair treatment and is vitiated by malafides," it said.</p>
