Mumbai: questioning the “veil of anonymity” to be accused, around 40 organizations have urged the Bombay High Court to attract “anti-survivor guidelines” issued recently by a judge under women’s sexual harassment at work (prevention, prohibition and removal) Or Posh Act, 2013.
The letter was aimed at the Chairman of the Datta Datta Judge.
The leadership has been taken by the forum against the suppression of women and including BaiCrho Saad from Goa, WESPEAKUT from Delhi, People Union for Civil Liberties from Mumbai, Sasha from Bengaluru, the Women’s Support Alliance of Hyderabad and the Indian Christian Women’s Movement from Chennai.
About 135 individuals and activists also signed it.
Observing no guidelines set to protect the identity of the party from disclosure, Justice Gautam Patel on September 24 which issued initial guidelines that made them apply to all orders, hearing and case management case.
However, these organizations have attacked them, said HC “effectively, expanded the circle of silence on sexual harassment of women, common in the community, by itself”.
Their letter declares the order operates with the assumption that the parties in the case of sexual abuse are the same.
“The court has failed to consider it often is the only voice of harmed women, pitted against large and senior companies of their strong and / or their bosses.” This shows luxurious actions to provide confidentiality for survivors but “the court has expanded protection to the defendant as well”.
It also stated that the blanket prohibited the disclosure of the identity of the parties force the survivors “to hide his identity and identity of the people who harassed them without taking into account their choices and freedom of speech”.
It also makes it or the media discuss any part of the process and invite insult to the court.
The letter states that with the anonymity of records, the process in the camera, prohibiting the upload and publication of the order and assessment, it will make congratulations on the judiciary that prohibits, especially if he does not live in court jurisdiction.
He asked what was so “specific” about luxurious actions and those accused of underneath that “the defendant required the court to carve out this anonymous veil which was not given another charge under the other law.
The letter said the ripple from the order might not be limited to the case – Cases under the Posh Law.
Take a signal from this, the court can begin to issue gag commands in sexual harassment or other sexual violations that may not have a relationship with this action.
Junk ‘anti-survivor’ norm in case of luxury, HC urgently
