Sexual harassment in the newsroom and the media world is the proverbial elephant in the room. For a multiplicity of reasons, victims are compelled to bury the hatchet, and pushed to forget the offences against them. But a recent ruling by the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court could provide courage to victims to bravely speak up and seek legal redress.
The Order was passed against a senior journalist who was accused of serial sexual harassment and molestation by three women journalists.
The most significant part of the order is that it rubbishes claims of vindictiveness. It is commonplace for the accused in most sexual harassment claims to take the defence that the alleged victim was furthering an agenda of personal vendetta and, on most occasions, this plea succeeds. But not in this case.
- Sexual harassment is one of journalism’s worst kept secrets.
- A senior journalist became a nightmare for the three women working under his supervision.
- Sending sexually explicit messages and demanding sexual favours amounts to “assault”, court holds.
- Victims fear retaliation, so require time and strength to complain, hence, “delay” doesn’t mean complainants are dishonest.
Assault Need Not Always Be a Physical Act
All the three journalists had levelled charges of molestation and “Assault or using of criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman” (a crime under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code) against their senior colleague.
In addition, they had also levelled charges under the relevant laws which criminalise the sending of obscene messages over any electronic medium, because he would frequently bombard them with sexually explicit messages over WhatsApp.
A common defence in sexual harassment cases is that most of the allegations are fabricated. Comprising sexual innuendos and insinuations, they are difficult to prove in court, hence, the accused usually get away with this ploy.
In this particular case, the accused fell back on the same tactic and contended that the victims had personal axes to grind – that their professional performance fell short of the mark, hence they were maliciously kicking up a storm.
A few forced kisses and a slew of lewd WhatsApp messages seeking sexual favours didn’t constitute an offence of assault, he contended. But the court held otherwise, by averting the risk of falling into the legalese trap, and acted out of empathy instead.
It held that concentrated efforts at forcing someone to do something against their will would also amount to “assault” under Section 354.
Delay in Filing Complaints Not Dishonesty
In every second case of sexual assault or harassment, defence lawyers resort to a plausible excuse – she filed the complaint as an afterthought – that is, she conjured up one, and hence, isn’t to be believed.
But in this case, the strategy failed and this has significant implications on the cause of justice.
The lawyer for the accused claimed that the time lag between the alleged acts of his client and the filing of complaints by the victims clearly showed that something was amiss – the victims were strategising to bring false claims in order to cover up their own faults.
But the court did not buy this argument. It reasoned and held that a victim would require sufficient time and robust support from fellow sufferers before seeking legal redress, especially because reputations at stake could be maligned.
This isn’t a signal of dishonesty but a symbol of the biases our society is reeling from, the court held. Consequently, the accused person’s plea fell flat.
It is a reality that sexual harassment in various workplaces is widely prevalent. And that very rarely can its victims access the criminal justice system.
And it’s exactly here that the court’s ruling plays a useful role in encouraging victims because it spares the ignominy of suspicion and widens the ambit of the definition of a criminal offence.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)