Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking amendments in Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013 for making the same to be gender neutral.

The proposed changes were sought to extend the protection of constitutional rights to individuals beyond women, specifically including LGBTQIA+ persons within the scope of these regulations.

These Regulations were made following enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and were notified by the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the bench, led by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, asserted that the core intent of these regulations is to safeguard the rights of an 'aggrieved woman' within the workplace, specifically within the precincts of the Supreme Court of India.

The Misc. application was filed by Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhika and assisted by Ms. Baani Khanna, AOR.

Makhija, appearing as party-in-person, submitted that rules and regulations are “wholly inadequate” to include  "Aggrieved woman" [as defined in Regulation 2(a)] LGBTQIA+ persons it should be supplanted with “aggrieved persons” to reflect the gender-neutral protection of the Regulations.

Senior counsel Makhija, relied upon the case of NALSA vs. UOI, (2014) 5 SCC 348.

Initially, the court pointed out that the current regulations are designed to safeguard the rights of an 'aggrieved woman' within the workplace, specifically the Supreme Court of India.

Additionally, the court mentioned that these regulations were formulated in accordance with Article 15(3) of the Constitution, which pertains to special provisions for women.

Remarkably, the court recognized that the existing definition of an "aggrieved woman" does not encompass LGBTQIA+ individuals.

The Supreme Court relied upon, State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. A.R. Zakki, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 548 and UOI vs. K. Pushpavanam, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 987, and said that, Constitutional Court would not issue a writ of mandamus to a legislature or to a rule making body to enact a particular legislation.

Given the context, Makhija decided to withdraw her application.

Accordingly, the application was disposed of as withdrawn and directed to make a representation to the Gender Sensitization Committee of the Supreme Court for formulation of another body of Regulations to cover persons belonging to the LGBTQIA+ Communities for their protection from sexual harassment in the workplace i.e. Supreme Court of India.

Case Title: MA 2308/2023 in W.P.(C) No. 162/2013 BINU TAMTA AND ANR. BAANI KHANNA Versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Click here to Read/Download the order