Sometimes a small move is enough to sour a grand objective. The government seems to have managed to do just that by announcing recently that it would insert a fresh clause in the draft Sexual Harassment at the Workplace (Prevention) Bill, due to be tabled in Parliament later this year. The clause says that if a woman is found to have misused the law — that is, if the charges against her alleged tormentor are found to be false — she is liable to be punished in accordance with the service rules of her organization. She could face a fine, or a transfer. She could even get the sack.

Apparently, the government slipped in this little sting in the law’s tail to safeguard the interest of male workers who fear that women may unjustly invoke the law against them out of malice or spite.

It’s a touching gesture towards men, no doubt. Unfortunately, it is also utterly wrong-headed and is likely to defeat the whole purpose of bringing in such a legislation.

The Supreme Court guidelines to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace laid down in 1997 had two main objectives. The first was to create the right workplace environment so that a victim could come forward and make a complaint. The second was to set up a mechanism — a complaints committee in every organization — that would see to its redress. The bill, which was drafted two years ago, was supposed to give these guidelines a firm legislative shape. One hoped that it would eventually deliver a tough law that would empower women and give victims of sexual harassment the courage to seek justice.

Complain not

For, a woman in our society needs a lot of pluck to protest against sexual harassment. No matter how intolerable the sexual advances of a male colleague may be, she usually hesitates a thousand times before lodging a formal complaint. She fears ridicule, social censure; she fears being labelled a tease. But what she fears most is institutional backlash. She has a terrible dread that the authorities will get back at her somehow, that when all is said and done, she will be punished for her temerity and quietly eased out for creating ‘trouble’.

This is perhaps why sexual harassment in the workplace continues to be one of the most under-reported crimes in our country. Studies too have shown that even where complaints committees are in place, most victims of harassment still baulk at filing a formal complaint.

Under the circumstances, is it likely that a sexual harassment law that makes the complainant punishable will encourage a victim to come forward and press charges? She may have been passed over for a promotion because she did not grant sexual favours to her boss. Or she may have been suffering the surreptitious pawing of a serial groper. But would she formally complain about it knowing that her own job would be on the line if her charges were dismissed as baseless, and hence mala fide?

Probably not. Indeed, the misuse rider in the draft bill seems to be tailor-made to keep would-be complainants at bay. Instead of encouraging women to raise their voice against sexual harassment, it discourages them. Furthermore, by providing this tool of chastisement against ‘erring’ women, the misuse clause reinforces the unequal power balance that gives rise to sexual harassment in the first place. It is not just a legal addendum. It is a fresh reminder of the fragility of the condition of being a woman.

Any law can be misused. Besides, let us not forget that a person wrongly accused of a crime can always file legal charges against his accuser. But to hold the threat of punishment over a complainant’s head is to subvert the object of a law against sexual harassment. It will lead to fewer women coming forward with their tale of persecution. And the silence surrounding sexual harassment in the workplace will be more deafening than ever.