Survey involved 15,000 respondents from rural and urban India. About 50% who said they were harassed at workplace said it happened during regular work hours.
New Delhi: As India’s #MeToo movement gains significant momentum, a new survey conducted across 200 districts of the country, in both urban and rural areas, has found that 78 per cent people who faced sexual harassment at the workplace did not report it.
Over the last fortnight, several women have taken to social media to name alleged sexual harassers from various fields such as journalism, films, comedy, advertising, etc.
Also read: Pursuing #MeToo cases legally faces a big hurdle – the law
However, the online survey, conducted by LocalCircles, found that 32 per cent of the 15,000 respondents surveyed said they or their family members had faced sexual harassment at the workplace.
According to the survey, 45 per cent of the respondents said they had not faced sexual harassment, while another 23 per cent said they were not sure — which means that the percentage of those actually harassed could be anywhere between 32 and 55 per cent.
Further, the survey included 40 per cent female respondents and 60 per cent male respondents — which also means that the percentage of women who have faced sexual harassment at the workplace is probably well above 32 per cent.
Alarmingly, 69 per cent of those who faced sexual harassment said the episode took place at their work premises. This, the survey noted, clearly establishes that the majority of sexual harassment incidents does not take place while socialising with colleagues or under the influence of alcohol, as may be often perceived.
As many as 50 per cent of the respondents who claimed to have experienced sexual harassment at the workplace said that the episode took place at work during regular office hours.
Also read: Panel of senior judges & legal experts plan to look into #MeToo complaints: Maneka Gandhi
Another 19 per cent said they had experienced sexual harassment after work hours at the workplace, while the remaining 31 per cent claimed it happened during after-hours at social gatherings or private places.
Of those who said they had been sexually harassed, 50 per cent said it took the form of physical advances.
Another 19 per cent said that it took the form of demands or requests for sexual favours, while the remaining 31 per cent said they had faced sexually-coloured remarks or a display of porn.
☆ MUKESH KUMAR, ASST. REG. LAW-1, FAILED IN HIS DUTIES TO PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS OF CITIZENS! “TEASING ILLUSION, SHAMELESS, FAKE, TOOTHLESS PAPER TIGER-NHRC,” SAID SOLI SARABJEE.
☆ ASI NARENDER SINGH’S, NO.133,THIRD DEGREE CUSTODIAL TORTURE, CAN NOT BE CONDONED BY NHRC? NOTICE TO MR. B.S. SANDHU, I.P.S. DGP-HARYANA, GIVEN DIRECTIONS FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. SURREPTITIOUS.
ASI NARENDER SINGH, SI VIJAY KUMAR, SI BALRAJ SINGH, SUDEEP KUMAR SINGH, GURUGRAM, INDULGED IN THIRD DEGREE TORTURE ON INNOCENT CITIZENS. CONFESSIONS TO SURABH SINGH, IPS, IGP-SCB, BY ASI NARENDER SINGH, “LATHBAAZ” 3RD DEGREE CUSTODIAL TORTURE. SHAME ON NARENDER SINGH & SUDEEP KUMAR SINGH!
☆ Hon’ble Justice T.S. Thakur and Hon’ble Justice R. Bhanumati in Order dated 24th July, 2015 have stated, “to check the brutal use of power against innocent people brought to a police station, IT IS MANDATORY FOR POLICE STATIONS TO INSTALL CCTV CAMERAS”.
☆That the custodial torture of Zamir Ahmed Khan UP (case No. 14071/24/2001-2002) SHO-abused his power. “Because there is/was no serious injury caused to victim is disturbing. Custodial torture even without inflicting any visible injury would justify award of compensation and disciplinary action against delinquent police personnel.” NHRC.
☆Supreme Court of India has termed custodial torture as a “naked violation of human dignity that destroys victim’s self esteem and termed this inhuman treatment as a calculated assault on human dignity. An accused or suspect cannot be tortured or subject to third degree torture or be eliminated.” Justice Kuldeep Singh, Justice A.S. Anand, Justice VR Krishna Iyer of Supreme Court of India.
☆In Kishore Singh Vs State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court of India observed, “to resort to third degree methods by police violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The police rely on fists than on wits, on torture more than on culture and the police by doing such acts cannot control crimes. Nothing is more cowardly- unconscionable than a person in police custody beaten up” (1981-SCR(1)1995).
☆Supreme Court of India Judgment in Joginder Kumar Vs State of UP on 25 April 1994, Equivalent Citations: 1994 AIR 1349, 1994 SCC (4) 260, Author: M Venkatachalliah, Justice S. Mohan.
☆ Sheela Barse case imposed upon the Duty Magistrate, to enquire from the person brought to them whether he has any complaint of torture or maltreatment?
☆ NILABATI BEHRA VS STATE OF ORISSA gives RIGHTS OF COMPENSATION.
☆ In D.K. BASU VERSUS STATE OF WEST BENGAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA HAS DIRECTED THAT, it was to be entered in daily diary as to who of the detainees family /friend is informed ? Supreme Court had stated that merely on the suspicion of the complicity in an offence, a person cannot be arrested.”No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. Except in heinous offences, and arrest must be avoided.The rights of a citizen of Article 21 and 22(1) has to be scrupulously protected.”
☆ Further the Indian Police Act in Section 7 & SECTION 29 clearly states, “Torture in custody is a punishable act.”
☆ In Khatri Vs. State of Bihar the Supreme Court of India gave rights to legal and medical assistance
☆Article 20(3), 21, 22, 32 and 226 of the Constitution give protection to the human rights. The NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION prohibits custodial torture of any kind: mental or physical and has directed the SHO’S of all police stations to keep the suspects, “safe from any physical assault while in police custody”.
☆Article 9(5) gives ENFORCEABLE RIGHT TO COMPENSATION.
☆Rule 16. 17 ” (Ditto of PPR) DEALS WITH POWER TO SUSPEND.
RULE 16.18 DEALS WITH SUSPENSION DURING A DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY. FUNDAMENTAL RULE 43.
RULE 16.6 DEALS WITH CONFINEMENT TO QUARTER.
RULE 16.7 IS THE PUNISHMENT DRILL
RULE 16.8 DEALS WITH CENSURES. CHAPTER 20 DEALS WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION (PPR)
“DURING CUSTODY THE ARRESTED PERSON IS ENTITLED TO A FAIR TREATMENT AND NO CUDTODIAL TORTURE IS PERMISSIBLE. ( PPR PAGES 219 )
SHAME ON MUKESH KUMAR! AWAKE AND ARISE NHRC!
# LET THE TRUTH PREVAIL
This is why India needs Me Too.