A.K. Chopra, the respondent, was employed as a private secretary to the chairman of the Apparel Export Promotion Council (the appellant). On August 12, 1988, he used his position of authority to compel a female employee, Miss X, to accompany him to the Business Centre at the Taj Palace Hotel for dictation, despite her lack of training in taking dictation.
Taking advantage of the secluded setting, Chopra attempted to molest her by sitting too close and touching her inappropriately, despite her repeated objections. Following an inquiry, the disciplinary authorities found him guilty of sexual harassment, leading to his dismissal from service.
Challenging his dismissal, Chopra filed a writ petition before the High Court, arguing that his removal was unjustified. A single judge ruled in his favor, reasoning that since he had only attempted to molest Miss X without actual physical contact, the dismissal was excessive. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld this decision, ordering his reinstatement. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the Apparel Export Promotion Council appealed the judgment.
Issues before the Court
The case raises key legal questions regarding sexual harassment in the workplace. The first issue concerns whether physical contact is a necessary element to constitute sexual harassment. The second issue examines whether a superior's inappropriate behaviour, which violates decency and modesty, can still amount to sexual harassment even in the absence of physical contact. Another question is whether an attempt to molest a female employee at the workplace would be considered misconduct and a violation of professional ethics. Lastly, the case questions the High Court's authority to intervene in a decision already made by the disciplinary authority, evaluating whether such interference is legally justified.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Analysis of the Court
The Supreme Court ruled that in the absence of any procedural irregularity, the High Court erred in interfering with the disciplinary authority’s findings and the punishment imposed. It reaffirmed the principle that judicial review is limited to examining the decision-making process, not the correctness of factual findings supported by evidence.
Addressing the issue of sexual harassment, the Court emphasized that it constitutes sex discrimination, manifesting through unwelcome sexual advances, requests for favours, and other inappropriate conduct. Such behaviour, whether direct or implied, creates a hostile and intimidating work environment, affecting a woman's dignity, employment, and performance at work. The Court firmly held that every act of workplace harassment violates fundamental rights to equality, life, and liberty as enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court made it clear that the absence of physical contact does not diminish the gravity of sexual harassment. The argument that the accused did not molest the victim because there was no physical contact was deemed unacceptable and flawed. The Court further held that the respondent’s conduct was offensive to morality, decency, and the modesty of the victim. Given his position as a superior officer, such behaviour was unbecoming of his status and amounted to sexual harassment.
Finally, the Court stressed that reducing the punishment in such cases would have a demoralizing effect on women employees and would set a dangerous precedent. It categorically stated that there can be no compromise on eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace, and any leniency in punishment would be a step backward in protecting women's rights and dignity.
Conclusion
In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in the Vishakha judgment, emphasizing that sexual harassment of women in the workplace is a clear violation of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court upheld that ensuring a safe and dignified work environment is essential for protecting women’s rights to equality, freedom, and life with dignity.
