Mumbai: A woman fighting a court battle in a case safety of women Sexual Harassment Act, 2016 (posh) has filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against an order of the Bombay High Court, which laid down guidelines to protect the identity of both the parties, stating that all such matters will be heard on camera and the media shall be barred from publishing the proceedings without the approval of the Court.
posh act The ICC itself is required to maintain the confidentiality of both parties during proceedings before the ICC and cannot be disclosed to the media, but section 16 of the Act states, “Any victim of sexual harassment under this Act shall Information about safe justice may be disseminated. Disclosure of name, address, identity or any other particulars calculated to identify the aggrieved woman and witnesses.
Anonymizing both the parties in the court proceedings is “a death blow to the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined and guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India”, says the SLP, calling the HC order a “gag order”. is called.
Her SLP, filed through her lawyer Abha Singh, says that the HC order is “plagued by serious illegalities which vitiate the order in law” and “failed to take into account that the matters of social justice and women’s empowerment” In the U.S., public discourse plays an important role in shaping the nature of legal rights granted to women. The SLP says the HC’s order is “liable to set aside”. It said, “The High Court has failed to consider that any comprehensive ban or form of injunction barring the transmission of true and accurate facts in a gag order would encroach upon the right of the people to know and their right to information.” which is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a).”
It also said that the HC “failed to take into account the fact that the suit filed was for seeking compensation for wrongful and defamatory termination and not for challenging the findings of internal complaints committee (‘ICC’) which of the ICC’s findings have been challenged before the Appropriate Tribunal.”
HC Bench of Justice Gautam Patel On September 24, 2021, noting that there were no guidelines on the issue, the guidelines were laid down, which he clearly mentioned were only “preliminary guidelines and necessary revisions or revisions”. will be subordinate.”
The HC had said that disclosure of the identity of the parties in proceedings under PoSH, even to protect them from accidental disclosure, was “mandatory” and “in the interest of both the parties”.
HC framed guidelines to be followed in future cases. Thereafter, all hearings and orders will be held ‘in-camera’ in open court and judgments on the merits of a case will not be uploaded, except on publishing “names, addresses or other personally identifiable information (PII) of the parties”. The restriction is there. Absolute.” Neither the names of the witnesses will be mentioned, nor their addresses will be noted.
The HC had directed all persons, including the media, to ensure strict compliance and any failure would amount to “contempt of court”.
While barring the disclosure to the media, the HC said, “Both the parties and all the parties and the advocates, as well as the witnesses shall not be permitted to file any order, judgment or media or publish any such material in any mode or fashion.” are forbidden from. including social media, without the special permission of the court.”
Further, the HC directed that there would be no online or VC facility. physical form only. The support staff must leave the court. At most, only an anonymous version of the order will be issued.
By order of the HC, both the parties, the parties and advocates are prohibited from issuing any order or adjudicating material to the media, with the SLP questioning the legality of such order saying that it violates the freedom of speech and expression. Is.
posh act The ICC itself is required to maintain the confidentiality of both parties during proceedings before the ICC and cannot be disclosed to the media, but section 16 of the Act states, “Any victim of sexual harassment under this Act shall Information about safe justice may be disseminated. Disclosure of name, address, identity or any other particulars calculated to identify the aggrieved woman and witnesses.
Anonymizing both the parties in the court proceedings is “a death blow to the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined and guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India”, says the SLP, calling the HC order a “gag order”. is called.
Her SLP, filed through her lawyer Abha Singh, says that the HC order is “plagued by serious illegalities which vitiate the order in law” and “failed to take into account that the matters of social justice and women’s empowerment” In the U.S., public discourse plays an important role in shaping the nature of legal rights granted to women. The SLP says the HC’s order is “liable to set aside”. It said, “The High Court has failed to consider that any comprehensive ban or form of injunction barring the transmission of true and accurate facts in a gag order would encroach upon the right of the people to know and their right to information.” which is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a).”
It also said that the HC “failed to take into account the fact that the suit filed was for seeking compensation for wrongful and defamatory termination and not for challenging the findings of internal complaints committee (‘ICC’) which of the ICC’s findings have been challenged before the Appropriate Tribunal.”
HC Bench of Justice Gautam Patel On September 24, 2021, noting that there were no guidelines on the issue, the guidelines were laid down, which he clearly mentioned were only “preliminary guidelines and necessary revisions or revisions”. will be subordinate.”
The HC had said that disclosure of the identity of the parties in proceedings under PoSH, even to protect them from accidental disclosure, was “mandatory” and “in the interest of both the parties”.
HC framed guidelines to be followed in future cases. Thereafter, all hearings and orders will be held ‘in-camera’ in open court and judgments on the merits of a case will not be uploaded, except on publishing “names, addresses or other personally identifiable information (PII) of the parties”. The restriction is there. Absolute.” Neither the names of the witnesses will be mentioned, nor their addresses will be noted.
The HC had directed all persons, including the media, to ensure strict compliance and any failure would amount to “contempt of court”.
While barring the disclosure to the media, the HC said, “Both the parties and all the parties and the advocates, as well as the witnesses shall not be permitted to file any order, judgment or media or publish any such material in any mode or fashion.” are forbidden from. including social media, without the special permission of the court.”
Further, the HC directed that there would be no online or VC facility. physical form only. The support staff must leave the court. At most, only an anonymous version of the order will be issued.
By order of the HC, both the parties, the parties and advocates are prohibited from issuing any order or adjudicating material to the media, with the SLP questioning the legality of such order saying that it violates the freedom of speech and expression. Is.
,