Bombay HC rules that commenting on a woman colleague’s hair does not amount to sexual harassment, quashes charges against HDFC Bank executive | PTI
Mumbai: Commenting on a woman colleague’s hair or singing a song about it does not amount to sexual harassment at the workplace, the Bombay High Court has ruled while granting relief to a senior executive of HDFC Bank.
The court quashed a 2022 report by the bank’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and a subsequent order by the Pune industrial court, which had upheld the findings of misconduct under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Justice Sandeep Marne, in his March 18 ruling, observed that even if the allegations against Vinod Kachave, an associate regional manager at HDFC Bank, were true, they did not constitute sexual harassment.
The woman had accused Kachave of making a remark about her hair and singing a song referring to it. She also alleged that in another instance, he made an inappropriate remark about a male colleague’s private part in the presence of female employees.
However, the HC found the ICC’s findings flawed. “Even if the allegations regarding the incident are accepted as proved, it becomes difficult to hold that the petitioner has committed any act of sexual harassment,” Justice Marne said.
Kachave had been demoted to deputy regional manager based on the ICC’s report. His appeal before the industrial court was dismissed in July 2024, prompting him to approach the high court.
His lawyer, Sana Raees Khan, argued that the allegations did not fall under the purview of the POSH Act. She contended that Kachave merely joked that the complainant must be using a “JCB” to manage her hair. As for the second allegation, Khan pointed out that the complainant was not even present when the alleged remark was made.
The court also noted that the woman filed her complaint only after resigning from the company. Additionally, after the alleged incident in June 2022, Kachave and the complainant exchanged WhatsApp messages, where he encouraged her at work, and she expressed gratitude. This exchange, the court said, “would cast serious doubt as to whether the complainant was really offended by his conduct.”
Regarding the second incident, the court said that since the complainant was not present and the remark was not directed at her, it was difficult to classify it as sexual harassment.
Calling the industrial court’s findings “clearly perverse,” the HC ruled that no case of sexual harassment was made out, setting aside both the ICC’s report and the industrial court’s order.
