In the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra
The Supreme Court, while emphasising the definition of what amounts to sexual harassment, upheld the dismissal of a superior officer of the Delhi-based Apparel Export Promotion Council who was found guilty of sexually harassing a subordinate female employee at the workplace.
This landmark judgment reaffirmed that the protection of women from sexual harassment is an essential component of gender equality at work. The Court emphasised that no woman should be forced to tolerate an environment that undermines her dignity or restricts her ability to perform her duties freely.
According to the Court,
“Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination projected through unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct with sexual overtones, whether directly or by implication—particularly when submission to or rejection of such conduct by the female employee could affect her employment or unreasonably interfere with her work performance, thereby creating an intimidating or hostile work environment for her.”
The Court further observed that in such cases, judicial bodies must focus on the broader implications of the act rather than relying on narrow technicalities or dictionary meanings. It held that the conduct of the respondent was clearly indecent and therefore amounted to sexual harassment.
One of the most significant aspects of this ruling was the broad interpretation it provided. The Supreme Court clarified that physical contact is not essential for an act to qualify as sexual harassment. This interpretation expanded the scope of the law, ensuring that verbal, written, or visual forms of misconduct were equally recognized as violations.
Through this case, the judiciary reinforced that dignity and respect are central to the right to work, and that organizations must maintain workplaces free from any form of intimidation, discrimination, or degradation. The ruling also underlined that the absence of physical assault does not minimize the trauma or professional harm caused by unwelcome sexual behavior.
This judgment became one of the foundational precedents that guided the framing of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the PoSH Act. It broadened the legal understanding of harassment to include both direct and indirect actions that compromise a woman’s sense of safety, comfort, or equality at work.
Takeaways for the Internal Committee
For Internal Committee (IC) members, this case offers important lessons in both interpretation and sensitivity. The Court’s reasoning provides a valuable lens for assessing complaints under the PoSH framework.
Adopt an inclusive perspective.
The Court’s ruling makes it clear that sexual harassment should not be viewed narrowly. IC members must assess every case based on the impact it creates, rather than waiting for overt physical acts to occur. Even verbal, written, or digital misconduct—such as suggestive messages or persistent unwanted attention—can constitute sexual harassment.
Focus on the complainant’s experience.
The impact on the complainant must always be at the centre of IC deliberations. Whether or not the act was intended to harm is secondary; what matters is how the behaviour affected the complainant’s dignity, comfort, or ability to work. This victim-centred approach ensures empathy and fairness in the inquiry process.
Recognise the violation of integrity and trust.
Every case should be viewed in terms of how the act violated someone’s personal and professional integrity. The IC’s role is not only to evaluate evidence but also to understand the emotional and psychological implications of the incident. The committee must ensure that its findings and recommendations restore faith in the organisation’s commitment to safety and equality.
Apply equal seriousness to all forms of harassment.
The Supreme Court’s stance that physical contact is not necessary for an act to amount to harassment highlights the importance of addressing virtual, written, or spoken forms of misconduct with equal gravity. Whether the harassment occurred through messages, emails, online meetings, or in person, the IC must treat all complaints as serious and deserving of a full, unbiased inquiry.
Ensure awareness and accountability.
Beyond responding to cases, the IC should also work toward preventive action—organizing awareness sessions, clarifying reporting channels, and reinforcing behavioral expectations. The goal is to cultivate a workplace culture where employees feel safe, respected, and heard.
Conclusion
The Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra case remains one of the most influential judgments shaping workplace conduct standards in India. It expanded the definition of sexual harassment and clarified that the absence of physical contact does not negate the seriousness of misconduct.
For organisations, this case serves as a reminder that compliance is not merely about meeting legal requirements—it’s about safeguarding human dignity. For IC members, it’s a guiding precedent that urges sensitivity, vigilance, and proactive engagement.
In essence, the spirit of the PoSH Act, and of this landmark ruling, is rooted in prevention, awareness, and accountability. By internalising these principles, workplaces can move beyond compliance toward building cultures of genuine respect and safety.
We help you company maintain the culture and meet the compliance. Reach out to us at hello@serein.inc