Delhi Court Awards ₹10 Lakh Damages Over False Sexual Harassment Complaint, Flags Misuse of POSH

A Delhi court has awarded ₹10 lakh in damages to a senior Border Security Force official after holding that false allegations of sexual harassment were deliberately levelled against him by a colleague, destroying his unblemished service record of more than three decades and tarnishing his reputation in the workplace and at home.

The decision was delivered by District Judge Gunjan Gupta, Saket Courts, in a civil defamation suit. The court found that the allegations were “false, concocted and motivated” and emphasised that false complaints of sexual harassment are as serious as genuine cases because they have the potential to devastate the life and dignity of an innocent person.

The plaintiff had approached the court through Bijender Singh, Advocate, who represented and prosecuted in the case pro-bono for the officer, seeking damages of ₹30 lakh, stating that after he pointed out repeated lapses in the defendant’s work, she developed personal animosity and, on the very day of her transfer from his office, filed a sexual harassment complaint against him. Two more complaints followed in February 2016, each with progressively detailed accusations.

An inquiry by senior BSF officials and an Internal Complaints Committee report submitted in October 2016 both found the allegations baseless. The findings, endorsed by the Inspector General (Personnel), concluded that there was “no substantiating evidence,” that the complainant’s versions contained contradictions, and that the officer was not present at the alleged place of incident. Witnesses, including female colleagues, also described the complainant as someone with a tendency to make false accusations when reprimanded for inefficiency.

Judge Gupta observed that the defendant did not file a written statement despite several opportunities and had not disputed the plaintiff’s documentary evidence, including the inquiry report. In cross-examination, the defendant did not put a single suggestion that the allegations were true.

The judgment noted: “Thus it is clear that the defendant had filed false and frivolous complaint alleging sexual harassment just to wreak personal vengeance as the plaintiff had reported deficiencies in her work to the concerned authorities. The complaints… were definitely defamatory and had tarnished the image and reputation of the plaintiff amongst his colleagues, family and society.”

The court described the wider impact of false allegations, remarking: “Though sexual harassment of women at workplace is a serious offence, however, a false allegation of sexual harassment against an innocent person cannot be weighed any less. It violates the Fundamental Rights of a person to live with dignity. It has tendency to affect his professional as well as personal life as the allegations spread like wildfire in society and people may even question the person accused and form adverse opinions as to his character.”

The judge further said that false complaints of this nature “have to be dealt with an iron hand to ensure that a strong message percolates in society and deters such people from making false allegations against an innocent individual, else superior officers will not be able to do anything out of fear of being prosecuted and will become mute spectators.”

Evidence in the case also showed that during the pendency of the inquiry, the officer’s colleagues began avoiding him, while his wife and son questioned him about the allegations. The court acknowledged that family life had been disrupted, noting that the plaintiff had been forced to live under the stigma of being branded a “probable sexual offender” despite his otherwise clean and progressive career record.

The judge held that while the claim of ₹30 lakh was excessive since apprehended financial losses had not actually materialised, damages of ₹10 lakh were appropriate. The award was based on the seriousness of the false charge, the plaintiff’s long and unblemished career in uniformed service, his standing in society, and the humiliation and mental harassment suffered.

The suit was accordingly decreed for ₹10 lakh with costs.