Men’s Mindset at Workplaces Remains Unchanged as Sexual Harassment Persists: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the mindset of men in workplaces remains unchanged, with sexual harassment continuing to haunt women, especially when “power dynamics” are at play. The Court said that neither education nor a high government post can shield a woman from such misconduct.

In a 22-page judgment, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “This case is a reflection of society, where despite stringent legislation and repeated lamentation about gender neutrality and equality to provide a safe work environment, unfortunately the psychology and mindset of the men in workplaces, where sexual harassment continues to haunt women, especially when it involves ‘Power Dynamics’, has remained unchanged.”

The judge drew on Shakespeare to highlight the struggles women face, observing that despite stringent laws and repeated calls for equality, societal attitudes and entrenched psychology still fail them. “Respondent No.2, despite being a qualified lady who was a member of Kashmir Administrative Services, was also not spared of the harassment at her workplace. This petition is another glaring example of the struggle of a woman wronged in her place of work, to get justice,” the Court observed.

The case arose out of a complaint by a Kashmir Administrative Service officer posted as Manager at the J&K Guest House in New Delhi. She filed the complaint against the accused–petitioner, Asif Hamid Khan, in the Department of Hospitality and Protocol, Jammu and Kashmir Government, under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. At the time, Khan was serving as Additional Resident Commissioner in the same office.

The complainant’s departmental complaint under the POSH Act was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee, which, after inquiry, submitted a report in February 2015 stating that the allegations against Khan were not established. Meanwhile, she had also lodged a police complaint in January 2015, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 354A, 506, and 509 IPC.

The Delhi Police investigated and filed a closure report in May 2016, stating that the complaint seemed motivated and that no supporting evidence was found. She then filed a protest petition, upon which the Magistrate ordered further investigation. After reinvestigation, the police again filed a supplementary closure report in 2017, stating that except for the complainant’s statement, no corroboration had emerged.

On 21 August 2017, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate noted that the proceedings of the Complaints Committee cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be equated to a criminal trial. The court held that the conclusions reached by the Investigating Officer were not correct and, to the contrary, there was ample and sufficient material warranting the summoning of Asif Hamid Khan to face trial for offences under Sections 354A and 509 IPC.

Khan then challenged the summoning order by filing a criminal revision before the Sessions Court. However, his plea was dismissed on 4 September 2018. The court recorded that the complainant had alleged the petitioner was a highly influential person and that, owing to his pressure, the police had filed closure reports twice. It further added that criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are distinct in nature, operating in separate fields with their own specific objectives.

Aggrieved, Khan approached the Delhi High Court seeking to quash both the Magistrate’s and the Sessions Court’s orders. He argued that since the Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act had exonerated him and the police had filed two closure reports, there was no justification for the courts to summon him for trial. His counsel contended that the summoning orders were unsustainable.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected these arguments. She held that an exoneration in a departmental enquiry does not bind criminal courts, as the two operate in different spheres with distinct objectives. The standard of proof in a disciplinary process is not the same as in a criminal trial. Similarly, a Magistrate is not bound by a police closure report and can take cognizance if material on record makes out a prima facie case.

“Therefore, merely because the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry cannot be the sole basis for discharging him in the present FIR,” the court said.

Court added that the complainant’s testimony itself carries evidentiary weight, and in this case, her detailed allegations were further supported by statements of several witnesses, including colleagues who recalled her complaints of harassment.

“In this context, it may also be observed that the Apex Court and High Courts have repeatedly stated that the sole testimony of the complainant/prosecutrix is sufficient to bring home a conviction, if it is found to be of sterling quality. Here is a case where the complainant has made specific allegations which cannot be trashed or claimed to be motivated without being put to the test of trustworthiness by way of trial,” the court added.

The judge observed that the complainant had shown courage to pursue her case despite pressures and setbacks, and that her allegations deserved to be tested through trial rather than dismissed prematurely.

Court concluded, “To say that the statement of the complainant is not corroborated by independent witnesses would not be correct. Many may have chosen not to depose against the petitioner, but the statement of the complainant and the witnesses who did corroborate her cannot be disregarded. They are sufficient for summoning of the petitioner.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: ASIF HAMID KHAN vs STATE

Order Date: 28 August 2025

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna