After Allahabad High Court, Bombay HC Says Singing Songs, Commenting Woman Colleague Not Sexual Harassment

The Bombay High Court has ruled that merely commenting on a female colleague’s hair and singing a song about it does not, by itself, amount to sexual harassment under workplace laws. The court made this observation while granting relief to a senior executive of a private bank who had been penalized following an internal inquiry.

Justice Sandeep Marne, in an order dated March 18, stated that even if the allegations against the petitioner were assumed to be true, they did not constitute an act of sexual harassment. “A concrete inference about sexual harassment cannot be drawn from the allegations,” the court said.

Background of the Case

The case involved Vinod Kachave, an associate regional manager with HDFC Bank in Pune, who had been found guilty of workplace misconduct by the bank’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The committee’s report led to his demotion to the position of deputy regional manager. Kachave challenged this decision before the industrial court, which upheld the ICC’s findings in July 2024. He then approached the Bombay High Court seeking relief.

Allegations Against the Bank Executive

According to the woman complainant, Kachave had made a comment about her hair and sung a song referring to it. Additionally, in another alleged incident, he was accused of making an inappropriate remark about a male colleague’s private part in the presence of other women employees.

High Court’s Observations

The Bombay High Court ruled that the bank’s complaints committee had failed to assess whether Kachave’s conduct actually fell within the definition of sexual harassment. The court emphasized that while the allegations might indicate inappropriate behavior, they did not necessarily amount to sexual misconduct under the law.

“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,” the court stated. It further criticized the industrial court’s ruling as “clearly perverse,” highlighting that even if the allegations were accepted as true, they did not establish a case of sexual harassment.

Legal Arguments and Defense

Kachave’s lawyer, Sana Raees Khan, argued that the alleged incidents did not fall under the purview of the POSH Act. She stated that Kachave had merely joked that the complainant must be using a “JCB” (a heavy-duty machine) to manage her hair. Regarding the second alleged remark, Khan pointed out that the complainant was not even present when it was made.

The lawyer also argued that the complaint was filed only after the complainant had already tendered her resignation, raising questions about its timing and intent.

Court’s Final Decision

The High Court found that the nature of the comment about the complainant’s hair did not indicate an intent to sexually harass her. Additionally, the judge noted that the complainant had not perceived the comment as harassment at the time it was made in June 2022. Supporting this point, the court cited WhatsApp messages exchanged between Kachave and the complainant after the incident, in which Kachave encouraged her work and she responded with gratitude.

“This exchange of messages after the occurrence of the alleged incident casts serious doubt as to whether the complainant was genuinely offended by his conduct,” the court observed.

Regarding the second alleged incident, the court pointed out that since the complainant was not present when the remark was made, and as it was not directed at her, it could not be considered an act of sexual harassment against her.

The Bombay High Court ultimately set aside both the internal committee’s report from September 2022 and the Pune industrial court’s ruling. The judgment raises important questions about the interpretation of sexual harassment laws in the workplace, emphasizing the need for a clear distinction between inappropriate behavior and legally defined harassment.