DY.INSPECTOR GEN.OF POLICE Vs S.SAMUTHIRAM
Case number: C.A. No.-008513-008513 / 2012
Diary number: 30656 / 2008
Advocates: B. BALAJI Vs
BALAJI SRINIVASAN
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8513 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.31592 of 2008)
The Deputy Inspector General of Police & Anr. …..Appellants
versus
S. Samuthiram ….. Respondent
J U D G M E N T
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Eve-Teasing is a euphemism, a conduct which attracts penal
action but it is seen, only in one State, a Statute has been enacted,
that is State of Tamil Nadu to contain the same, the consequence of
which may at times drastic. Eve-teasing led to the death of a woman
in the year 1998 in the State of Tamil Nadu which led the Government
bringing an ordinance, namely, the Tami Nadu Prohibition of Eve-
Teasing Ordinance, 1998, which later became an Act, namely, the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Act, 1998 [for short ‘the Eve-
Page 2
2
Teasing Act’]. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Eve-
Teasing Act reads as follows:
“Eve-teasing in public places has been a perennial problem. Recently, incidents of eve-teasing leading to serious injuries to, and even death of a woman have come to the notice of the Government. The Government are of the view that eve-teasing is a menace to society as a whole and has to be eradicated. With this in view, the Government decided to prohibit eve-teasing in the State of Tamil Nadu.
2. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve-teasing Ordinance, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 4 of 1998) was promulgated by the Governor and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary, dated the 30th July, 1998.
3. The Bill seeks to replace the said Ordinance.”
3. We are in this case concerned with a situation where a member
of the law enforcement agency, a police personnel, himself was caught
in the act of eve-teasing of a married woman leading to criminal and
disciplinary proceeding, ending in his dismissal from service, the
legality of which is the subject matter of this appeal.
4. The respondent herein, while he was on duty at the Armed
Reserve, Palayamkottai was deputed for Courtallam season Bandobust
duty on 9.7.1999 and he reported for duty on that date at 8.30 PM at
the Courtallam Season Police out post. At about 11.00 PM he visited
Page 3
3
the Tenkasi bus stand in a drunken state and misbehaved and eve-
teased a married lady, who was waiting along with her husband, to
board a bus. The respondent approached that lady with a dubious
intention and threatened both husband and wife stating that he would
book a case against the husband unless the lady accompanied him.
Further, he had disclosed his identity as a police man. Both husband
and wife got panic and complained to a police man, namely, Head
Constable Adiyodi (No.1368) who was standing along with Head
Constable Peter (No.1079) of Tenkasi Police Station on the opposite
side of the bus-stand. They were on night duty at the bus stand.
They rushed to the spot and took the respondent into custody and
brought him to Tenkasi Police Station along with the husband and wife.
Following that, a complaint No.625/1999 was registered on 10.7.1999
at that Police Station against the respondent under Section 509 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Eve-teasing Act. On
10.7.1999, at about 1.25 hrs., the respondent was taken to the
Government Hospital Tenkasi for medical examination. There he was
examined by Dr. N. Rajendran, who issued a Certificate of
Drunkenness, which reads as follows:
Page 4
4
“Symptoms at the time of examination:
Breath smell of alcohol, Eye congested, Retina expanded,
sluggish reaction to light, speech and activities normal,
pulse rate 96, Blood pressure 122/85. I am of opinion that
the above person:
(i) consumed alcohol but is not under its influence.
Station: Tenkasi Name: N. Rajendran Date: 10.07.1999 (Sd/- dt.10.07.1999)
Civil Surgeon
I am not willing to undergo blood and urine test.
Sd/- S. Samuthiram, PC 388”
5. The respondent was then placed under suspension from
10.7.1999 (FN) as per DO.1360/1999 in C.No.P1/34410/1999 vide
order dated 18.7.1999 and departmental proceedings were initiated
under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service
(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (in short ‘Tamil Nadu Service
Rules’) for his highly reprehensible conduct in behaving in a disorderly
manner to a married lady in a drunken state at Tenkasi bus stand on
9.7.1999. Further, it was also noticed that he was absent from duty
from 07.00 hrs on 10.7.1999 to 03.45 hrs.
Page 5
5
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Armed Reserve, Tiruneveli,
conducted a detailed domestic enquiry and after examining ten
prosecution witnesses and perusing fourteen prosecution documents
and after hearing the defence witnesses, submitted a report dated
22.11.1999 finding all the charges proved against the delinquent
respondent. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruneveli after carefully
perusing the enquiry report dismissed the respondent from service on
4.1.2000.
7. The respondent, aggrieved by the dismissal order, filed O.A.
No.1144 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai. While the O.A. was pending before the Tribunal, the Judicial
Magistrate, Tenkasi rendered the judgment in S.T.C No.613 of 2000 on
20.11.2000 acquitting the respondent of all the charges. The
judgment of the Criminal Court was brought to the notice of the
Tribunal and it was submitted that, on the same set of facts, the
delinquent be not proceeded within the departmental proceeding. The
judgment of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. and Another (1999) 3 SCC 679 was also placed before
the Tribunal in support of that contention.
Page 6
6
8. The Tribunal noticed that both, husband and wife, deposed
before the Enquiry Officer that the respondent had committed the
offence, which was supported by the other prosecution witnesses,
including the two policemen who took the respondent in custody from
the place of incident. Consequently, the Tribunal took the view that no
reliance could be placed on the judgment of the criminal court. The
O.A. was accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated
23.3.2004. The order was challenged by the respondent in a Writ
Petition No.13726 of 2004 before the High Court of Madras. The High
Court took the view that if a criminal case and departmental
proceedings against an official are based on the same set of facts and
evidence and the criminal case ended in an honourable acquittal and
not on technical grounds, imposing punishment of removal of the
delinquent official from service, based on the findings of domestic
enquiry would not be legally sustainable. The High Court also took the
view that the version of the doctor who was examined as PW8 and Ext.
P-4 certificate issued by him, could not be considered as sufficient
material to hold the respondent guilty and that he had consumed
alcohol, but was found normal and had no adverse influence of alcohol.
The High Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and set aside the
impugned order dismissing him from service. It was further ordered
Page 7
7
that the respondent be reinstated with continuity of service forthwith,
with back wages from the date of acquittal in the criminal case, till
payment.
9. The State, aggrieved by the said judgment has filed this appeal
by special leave through the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
10. Shri C. Paramasivam, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, submitted that the High Court was not justified in interfering
with disciplinary proceedings and setting aside the order of dismissal
of the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court
overlooked the fact that the standard of proof in a domestic enquiry
and criminal enquiry is different. The mere acquittal by the criminal
Court does not entitle the delinquent for exonerating in the disciplinary
proceedings. Learned counsel also submitted that the case in hand is
not where punishment of dismissal was imposed on the basis of
conviction in a criminal trial and only, in such situation, acquittal by a
Court in a criminal trial would have some relevance. Further, it was
also pointed out that, in the instant case, the respondent was not
honourably acquitted by the criminal Court, but was acquitted since
complainant turned hostile.
Page 8
8
11. Shri V. N. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent, supported the findings recorded by the High Court.
Learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the criminal court
acquitting the respondent has to be construed as an honourable
acquittal and that the respondent cannot be proceeded with on the
same set of facts on which he was acquitted by a criminal court.
Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in
Capt. M. Paul case (supra).
12. We may first deal with the departmental proceedings initiated
against the respondent.
DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDINGS:
13. We may indicate that the following were the charges levelled
against the respondent in the departmental proceedings and a charge
memo dated 24.8.1999 was served on the respondent:
(i) Reprehensible conduct in having behaved in a disorderly
manner in a drunkenness mood at Tenkasi Bus-stand on
9.7.1999 at 23.00 hrs.
Page 9
9
(ii) Highly reprehensible conduct in eve-teasing Pitchammal
(44/1999) W/o. Vanamamalai of Padmaneri in the
presence of her husband and having approached her with a
dubious intention on 9.7.1999 at 23.00 hrs. and thereby
getting involved in a criminal case in Tenkasi P.S. Cr. No.
625/1999 under Section 509 IPC and Section 4 of the
Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Ordinance Act, 1998
and
(iii) Highly reprehensible conduct in having absented from duty
from 10.7.1999 at 07.00 hrs onward till 03.45 hrs.
14. The charges were inquired into by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Armed Reserve Tirunelveli. The prosecution examined ten
witnesses and fourteen documents were produced. On the side of the
defence, D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 were examined. After examining the
witnesses on either side and after giving an opportunity of hearing, the
Enquiry Officer found all the three charges proved beyond reasonable
doubt. P.Ws. 4 and 5, who were Head Constables 1368 Adiyodi of
Tenkasi Police Station and Head Constable 1079 Peter of Tenkasi
Police Station, clearly narrated the entire incident and the involvement
of the respondent, so also PW 6, the Head Constable of Tenkasi Police
Page 10
10
Station. The Enquiry Officer clearly concluded that the evidence
tendered by the prosecution witnesses P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 and
prosecution documents 3, 4 and 5 would clearly prove the various
charges levelled against him. The Medical Officer of the Government
Hospital had also certified that the delinquent had consumed liquor
and he was not cooperating for urine and blood tests. The Enquiry
Officer also found that the delinquent ought to have reported for duty
at the out-post station on 10.7.1999 at 07.00 hrs. as per the
instruction given to him on 9.7.1999 at 20.30 hrs., while he reported
for courtallam season Bandobust duty at season out-post police
station. But, it was found that the delinquent had failed to report for
duty. Further, he had also indulged in the activity of eve-teasing a
married woman. After finding the delinquent respondent guilty of all
the charges, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report dated
22.11.1999. The Superintendant of Police, Tirunelveli concurred with
the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that the charges were
clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was held that the
respondent being a member of a disciplined force should not have
behaved in a disorderly manner and that too in a drunken state, in a
public place, and misbehaving with a married woman. It was held that
the said conduct of the respondent would undermine the morale of the
Page 11
11
police force, consequently, the Superintendant of Police awarded the
punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent, vide its
proceeding dated 4.1.2000. The respondent then filed an appeal
before the Inspector General of Police, which was rejected vide his
proceeding dated 10.3.2000. Respondent then filed an application in
O.A. No. 1144 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
While O.A. was pending, the delinquent was acquitted of the criminal
charges.
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS:
15. We have indicated that a criminal case was also registered
against the respondent by the Tenkasi Police Station being Crime No.
625/1999 under Section 509 IPC and Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing Act,
1998, which was registered as STC 613 of 2002 before the Judicial
Magistrate, Tenkasi. Before the Criminal Court, PW 1 and PW 2, the
husband and the wife (victim) turned hostile. Prosecution then did not
take steps to examine the rest of the prosecution witnesses. Head
Constable (No.1368) Adiyodi and Head Constable (No.1079) Peter of
Tenkasi Police Station were crucial witnesses. Facts would clearly
indicate that it was the above mentioned Head Constables who took
the respondent to Tenkasi Police Station along with P.Ws. 1 and 2,
Page 12
12
though P.Ws. 1 and 2 had clearly deposed before the Enquiry Officer of
the entire incident including the fact that the above mentioned two
Head Constables had taken the respondent along with P.Ws.1 and 2 to
the Tenkasi Police Station. The Criminal Court took the view that since
P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 turned hostile, the criminal case got weakened.
The prosecution, it may be noted also took no step to examine the
Head Constables by name 1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi
Police Station, so also the Doctor P.W.8 before the criminal Court. It
was under such circumstances that the criminal Court took the view
that there is no evidence to implicate the respondent-accused,
consequently, he was found not guilty under Section 509 IPC read with
Section 4 of the Eve-Teasing Act and was, therefore, acquitted.
16. We may indicate that before the order of acquittal was passed by
the Criminal Court on 20.11.2000, the Departmental Enquiry was
completed and the respondent was dismissed from service on
4.1.2000. The question is when the departmental enquiry has been
concluded resulting in the dismissal of the delinquent from service, the
subsequent finding recorded by the Criminal Court acquitting the
respondent delinquent, will have any effect on the departmental
proceedings. The propositions which the respondent wanted to
Page 13
13
canvass placing reliance on the judgment in Capt. M. Paul Anthony
case (supra) read as follows:
“(i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.
(ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case.
(iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet.
(iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed.
(v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.”
17. This Court, in Southern Railway Officers’ Association v.
Union of India (2009) 9 SCC 24, held that acquittal in a criminal case
Page 14
14
by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Court
reiterated that order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent
officer had been acquitted of the criminal charge.
18. In State Bank of Hyderabad v. P.Kata Rao (2008) 15 SCC
657, this Court held that there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that
the jurisdiction of the superior Courts in interfering with the finding of
fact arrived at by the Enquiring Officer is limited and that the High
Court would also ordinarily not interfere with the quantum of
punishment and there cannot be any doubt or dispute that only
because the delinquent employee who was also facing a criminal
charge stands acquitted, the same, by itself, would not debar the
disciplinary authority in initiating a fresh departmental proceeding
and/or where the departmental proceedings had already been
initiated, to continue therewith. In that judgment, this Court further
held as follows:
“The legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a departmental proceedings and in a criminal case simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The dicta of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and
Page 15
15
Another [(1999) 3 SCC 679], however, remains unshaken although the applicability thereof had been found to be dependant on the fact situation obtaining in each case.”
19. In a later judgment of this Court in Divisional Controller,
Karnataka State Raod Transport Corporation v. M. G., Vittal Rao
(2012) 1 SCC 442, this Court after a detailed survey of various
judgments rendered by this Court on the issue with regard to the
effect of criminal proceedings on the departmental enquiry, held that
the Disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of dismissal from
service cannot be held to be disproportionate or non-commensurate to
the delinquency.
20. We are of the view that the mere acquittal of an employee by a
criminal court has no impact on the disciplinary proceedings initiated
by the Department. The respondent, it may be noted, is a member of
a disciplined force and non examination of two key witnesses before
the criminal court that is Adiyodi and Peter, in our view, was a serious
flaw in the conduct of the criminal case by the Prosecution.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of
winning order P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the criminal case cannot be ruled out.
Page 16
16
We fail to see, why the Prosecution had not examined Head Constables
1368 Adiyodi and 1079 Peter of Tenkasi Police Station. It was these
two Head Constables who took the respondent from the scene of
occurrence along with P.Ws. 1 and 2, husband and wife, to the Tenkasi
Police Station and it is in their presence that the complaint was
registered. In fact, the criminal court has also opined that the
signature of PW 1 (husband – complainant) is found in Ex.P1 –
Complaint. Further, the Doctor P.W.8 has also clearly stated before
the Enquiry Officer that the respondent was under the influence of
liquor and that he had refused to undergo blood and urine tests. That
being the factual situation, we are of the view that the respondent was
not honourably acquitted by the criminal court, but only due to the fact
that PW 1 and PW 2 turned hostile and other prosecution witnesses
were not examined.
Honourable Acquittal
21. The meaning of the expression ‘honourable acquittal’ came up for
consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of
India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541. In
that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4)
dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the
Page 17
17
disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the
mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in
service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The
expressions ‘honourable acquittal’, ‘acquitted of blame’, ‘fully
exonerated’ are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the
Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is
difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression
‘honourably acquitted’. When the accused is acquitted after full
consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had
miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it
can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.
22. In R.P. Kapoor v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787, it was
held even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may
follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of
Assam and another v. Raghava Rajgopalachari reported in 1972
SLR 45, this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord
Williams, J. in (1934) 61 ILR Cal. 168 which is as follows:
“The expression “honourably acquitted” is one which is unknown to court of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extra judicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant believed it to be true
Page 18
18
and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the Government authorities and by the magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what Government authorities term ‘honourably acquitted’”.
23. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in
the service rule for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably
acquitted by a Criminal Court, no right is conferred on the employee to
claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard
of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and
the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely
different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the
accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is
settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in
a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and
preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where
a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up
other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile etc. In
the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many
Page 19
19
of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his
wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving
the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say in the instant case,
the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and
even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil
Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.
24. We have also come across cases where the service rules provide
that on registration of a criminal case, an employee can be kept under
suspension and on acquittal by the criminal court, he be reinstated. In
such cases, the re-instatement is automatic. There may be cases
where the service rules provide in spite of domestic enquiry, if the
criminal court acquits an employee honourably, he could be reinstated.
In other words, the issue whether an employee has to be reinstated in
service or not depends upon the question whether the service rules
contain any such provision for reinstatement and not as a matter of
right. Such provisions are absent in the Tamil Nadu Service Rules.
25. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the
view that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the
punishment imposed in the departmental proceedings as against the
Page 20
20
respondent, in its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
26. We may, in the facts and circumstances of this case, wish to add
some aspects which are also of considerable public importance. We
notice that there is no uniform law in this country to curb eve-teasing
effectively in or within the precinct of educational institutions, places of
worship, bus stands, metro-stations, railway stations, cinema theatres,
parks, beaches, places of festival, public service vehicles or any other
similar place. Eve-teasing generally occurs in public places which, with
a little effort, can be effectively curbed. Consequences of not curbing
such a menace, needless to say, at times disastrous. There are many
instances where girls of young age are being harassed, which
sometimes may lead to serious psychological problems and even
committing suicide. Every citizen in this country has right to live with
dignity and honour which is a fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Sexual harassment like eve-
teasing of women amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 15 as well. We notice in the absence of effective
legislation to contain eve-teasing, normally, complaints are registered
under Section 294 or Section 509 IPC.
Page 21
21
27. Section 294 says that “Whoever, to the annoyance of others- (a)
does any obscene act in any public place, or (b) sings, recites or utters
any obscene song; ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both”.
28. It is for the prosecution to prove that the accused committed any
obscene act or the accused sang, recited or uttered any obscene song;
ballad or words and this was done in or near a public place, it was of
obscene nature and that it had caused annoyance to others. Normally,
it is very difficult to establish those facts and, seldom, complaints are
being filed and criminal cases will take years and years and often
people get away with no punishment and filing complaint and to
undergo a criminal trial itself is an agony for the complainant, over and
above, the extreme physical or mental agony already suffered.
29. Section 509 IPC says, “Whoever intending to insult the modesty
of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or
exhibits any object, intending, that such word or sound shall be heard,
or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or
intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with
Page 22
22
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine or with both”.
30. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused had
uttered the words or made the sound or gesture and that such word,
sound or gesture was intended by the accused to be heard or seen by
some woman. Normally, it is difficult to establish this and, seldom,
woman files complaints and often the wrong doers are left unpunished
even if complaint is filed since there is no effective mechanism to
monitor and follow up such acts. The necessity of a proper legislation
to curb eve-teasing is of extreme importance, even the Tamil Nadu
Legislation has no teeth.
31. Eve teasing today has become pernicious, horrid and disgusting
practice. The Indian Journal of Criminology and Criminalistics
(January-June 1995 Edn.) has categorized eve teasing into five heads
viz. (1) verbal eve teasing; (2) physical eve teasing; (3) psychological
harassment; (4) sexual harassment; and (5) harassment through
some objects. In Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan;
(1977) 6 SCC 241, this Court has laid down certain guidelines on
sexual harassments. In Rupan Deol Bajaj and Another v. K.P.S.
Gill; (1995) 6 SCC 194, this Court has explained the meaning of
Page 23
23
‘modesty’ in relation to women. More and more girl students, women
etc. go to educational institutions, work places etc. and their
protection is of extreme importance to a civilized and cultured society.
The experiences of women and girl children in over-crowded buses,
metros, trains etc. are horrendous and a painful ordeal.
32. The Parliament is currently considering the Protection of Woman
against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2010, which is intended
to protect female workers in most workplaces. Provisions of that Bill
are not sufficient to curb eve-teasing. Before undertaking suitable
legislation to curb eve-teasing, it is necessary to take at least some
urgent measures so that it can be curtailed to some extent. In public
interest, we are therefore inclined to give the following directions:
(1) All the State Governments and Union Territories are directed to
depute plain clothed female police officers in the precincts of bus-
stands and stops, railway stations, metro stations, cinema
theatres, shopping malls, parks, beaches, public service vehicles,
places of worship etc. so as to monitor and supervise incidents of
eve-teasing.
(2) There will be a further direction to the State Government and
Union Territories to install CCTV in strategic positions which itself
Page 24
24
would be a deterrent and if detected, the offender could be
caught.
(3) Persons in-charge of the educational institutions, places of
worship, cinema theatres, railway stations, bus-stands have to
take steps as they deem fit to prevent eve-teasing, within their
precincts and, on a complaint being made, they must pass on the
information to the nearest police station or the Women’s Help
Centre.
(4) Where any incident of eve-teasing is committed in a public
service vehicle either by the passengers or the persons in charge
of the vehicle, the crew of such vehicle shall, on a complaint
made by the aggrieved person, take such vehicle to the nearest
police station and give information to the police. Failure to do so
should lead to cancellation of the permit to ply.
(5) State Governments and Union Territories are directed to
establish Women’ Helpline in various cities and towns, so as to
curb eve-teasing within three months.
(6) Suitable boards cautioning such act of eve-teasing be exhibited in
all public places including precincts of educational institutions,
Page 25
25
bus stands, railway stations, cinema theatres, parks, beaches,
public service vehicles, places of worship etc.
(7) Responsibility is also on the passers-by and on noticing such
incident, they should also report the same to the nearest police
station or to Women Helpline to save the victims from such
crimes.
(8) The State Governments and Union Territories of India would take
adequate and effective measures by issuing suitable instructions
to the concerned authorities including the District Collectors and
the District Superintendent of Police so as to take effective and
proper measures to curb such incidents of eve-teasing.
33. The Appeal is accordingly allowed with the above directions and
the judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, there will be no
order as to costs.
…………………………………..J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)
…………………………………..J.
Page 26
26
(Dipak Misra)
New Delhi, November 30, 2012