Mitali Palnitkar
Published on: March 19, 2022 at 15:56 IST
The Bombay High Court clarified that the Guidelines issued by it in a September 2021 Order to protect the identities of parties in Proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH Act) were confined only to that particular Case and do not have Wider Applicability.
In September 2021, Justice Patel had Issued directions while hearing a Suit involving Issues in relation to the POSH Act.
On March 17, 2022; the Forum against Oppression of Women sought to intervene in the Suit in its representative capacity according to the Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising represented the Forum whereas Senior Advocate Dr Birendra Saraf represented the Defendants.
An Objection was raised in the Application against the Order under an impression that the Guidelines Issued in the September 2021 Order were General Directions which could Govern all Matters under the POSH Act and Rules. However, Justice Patel clarified that it was an incorrect impression.
The Order stated, “The directions had to be confined to this particular Case. They could not possibly have had any larger or wider applicability for the simple reason that any such Rules of General Applicability would have to be approved by the Apex Court.”
Justice Patel highlighted that the Rules can be Issued only by the entire High Court or Chief Justice of the High Court. Also, the Rules need to be Notified in the Official Gazette, which was not done in the present Case.
It was emphasized that a Single Judge does not have the Authority or Jurisdiction to issue Rules Binding the entire Court
Justice Patel further said that he had Adequately Addressed the ‘Inadvertent Lapses’ on his part in the October 2021 Order. He had Recorded about the Written Submissions and Clarified that Consent Order was applicable only to the Proceedings in that matter.
The Forum did not Press their Application further as it was satisfied that the Order had Addressed the Concerns. Thus, the Application was Disposed of.
