Check out the ultimate guide to 16 return-to-work programs in India for women
#MeToo panel set up to re-examine laws of workplace sexual harassment has been quietly dismantled by the new government, and this came to light only after The Quint filed an application under RTI.
Following MJ Akbar’s resignation last year, Prime Minister Modi’s government had set up a division called the “Group of Ministers” (GoM) comprising Nitin Gadkari, Nirmala Sitharaman, Maneka Gandhi, and Rajnath Singh, with the promise that they would re-examine the legal framework addressing workplace sexual harassment. This group was to then make appropriate recommendations within three months of their establishment and ensure their implementation in a time-bound manner.
Recently, The Quint filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 to find out about the status of this group, and was told that the group has been “dissolved.”
In their statement, The Quint also shared that they had spoken to a group of women who had shared that the government’s response and acknowledgment had held out room for hope and anticipation – but that has now turned into anger at their inaction. In the nine months since the announcement of the GoM’s existence, there has been no record whatsoever of what they did. They were supposed to submit recommendations within three months of their establishment – but there isn’t any record of any recommendations having been made.
In its RTI application, the Quint asked the following questions:
In response to this application, the government suggested that the committee was no longer in existence following the Constitution of the 17th Lok Sabha and the formation of a new government, the GoM was no longer in existence.
The response also added that the “required information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(i) of the RTI Act 2005,” specifically with reference to the specific RTI queries regarding the deliberations of the GoM. Section 8(i) of the RTI Act 2005 states that “There shall be no obligation to give any citizen details of cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers.”
While on the one hand, it is understandable that the government is under no obligation by law to disclose details sought, it is also important to understand that the GoM came into existence with a view to restructuring extant legal frameworks to address a citizen grievance under #MeToo.
Its constitution was in the public eye, its goals were placed in the public eye, and its establishment was announced alongside details of what it was set to do.
Given the pressing need for action to appropriately respond to complaints of workplace sexual harassment, this silence and stonewalling is problematic. When power structures keep complaints from coming to fore, keep systems in place that serve their interests, and do precious little to safeguard workplaces, the danger lies in the apathy towards the issue itself.
While the government is still within its right to refuse to disclose the finer details, it could well have put up some information on the progress of the GoM.
Several citizens continue to face or remain vulnerable to sexual harassment at the workplace. Several more have faced harassment and have had no redress, or have had piecemeal redress that has favoured the powerful and not the victim. A mention of where the GoM stands, whether there will be a reconstitution now that the former version stands dissolved, what the former version achieved or did not achieve in brief, can still be helpful.
Had they done this, it would have gone a long way by setting a precedent for action. But the stonewalling and silencing is effectively a reaffirmation of the very struggles that survivors of harassment face ahead of them in reportage.
When I was still wet around the ears as a law student, I came across an interesting concept one balmy afternoon: The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation. It sounded fancy.
In simple terms, it meant that a person may have a reasonable or legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain manner by administrative authorities either on account of their past practice, or, on account of an explicit promise made by the authority in question. By this token, then, a citizen has a legitimate expectation of a government that they vote into power, to act in fairness and with respect for the rights of its citizens.
By this doctrine, I, as a citizen, have a legitimate expectation that the government will deliver on what it said it would: and among the many other things that you and I may both have on our lists, the one thing that stands out is its attention to workplace sexual harassment.
Dissolving this panel violates that.
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
If her MIL had accepted her with some affection, wouldn't they have built a mutually happier relationship by now?
The incident took place ten years ago.
Smita could visit her mother only in summers when her daughter had school holidays. Her daughter also enjoyed meeting her Nani, and both of them had done their reservations for a week. A month before their visit, her husband told her, “My mom is coming for 4-5 months!”
Smita shuddered. She knew the repercussions. She would have to hear sarcastic comments from her mother-in-law for visiting her mother. She may make these comments directly only a bit, but her servants would be flooded with the words, “How horrible she is! She leaves me and goes!”
Maybe Animal is going to make Ranbir the superstar he yearns to be, but is this the kind of legacy his grandfather and granduncles would wish for?
I have no intention of watching Animal. I have heard it’s acting like a small baby screaming and yelling for attention. However, I read some interesting reviews which gave away the original, brilliant and awe-inspiring plot (was that sarcastic enough?), and I don’t really need to go watch it to have an informed opinion.
A little boy craves for his father’s love but doesn’t get it so uses it as an excuse to kill a whole bunch of people when he grows up. Poor paapa (baby) what else could he do?
I was wondering; if any woman director gets inspired by this movie and replicates this with a female protagonist, what would happen?. Oh wait, that’s the story of so many women in this world. Forget about not giving them love, you have fathers who try to kill their daughters or sell them off or do other equally despicable things.
Please enter your email address