Unwelcome workplace behaviour is sexual harassment: Madras high court
Justice RN Manjula said that the PoSH Act prioritises the act over intention, citing that women's feelings should determine the standard of reasonableness.
The Madras high court on Wednesday ruled that unwelcome behaviour in the workplace also constituted sexual harassment as the act itself constituted a criminal offence regardless of the harasser's intentions, reported The Times of India.

Justice RN Manjula emphasised that the PoSH Act prioritises the “act” of sexual harassment over the “intention” behind it.
Also Read: ‘Physical relations’ cannot automatically mean sexual assault, rules Delhi High court
She cited a US court judgment and said, “Unwelcome behaviour at the workplace is sexual harassment irrespective of the harasser's intent. If something is not received well, and it is inappropriate and felt as unwelcome behaviour affecting the other sex, namely women, no doubt it would fall under the definition of sexual harassment.”
Also Read: ‘Single instance of following a girl is not stalking’: Bombay high court
The judge also said the standard of reasonableness was a yardstick that had to be determined by the women and how they felt, not the other way around.
“While speaking about decency, it is not the decency that the offender thinks within himself but how he makes the other gender feel about his actions,” she said.
Also Read: Madras HC: Anna varsity sexual assault case is being politicised
The judge made these remarks while overturning a decision by the principal labour court that had dismissed the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of HCL Technologies in a case involving a service delivery manager who faced sexual harassment complaints from three women employees.
The women said that the man had abused his supervisory position, often touching their shoulders, insisting on handshakes, and coming close to them from behind while they were working. The man denied the accusations and said that he was only observing them work and did not intend to sexually harass them though the judge did not concur.
