Latest news with #Actof2013
New Indian Express
19-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Internal probe panels missing in several TN government colleges amid rise in harassment complaints across country
MADURAI: Amid increasing complaints of sexual harassment of women in workplaces and educational institutions across the country, at least 46 of the 180 government arts and science colleges in Tamil Nadu have failed to set up an 'Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)', which is mandatory under the POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace) Act of 2013. As per the law designed to protect women from sexual harassment, all workplaces, both public and private, must establish ICCs to address complaints and take steps to prevent sexual harassment of women. Of the 193 institutes (13 state-run universities and 180 government colleges) to which RTI queries were sent on the working of 'Vishaka Committees', only 80 colleges have sent their replies. Thirty-four colleges said they have ICC panels, but only nine of them shared details about these committees. None of the government universities responded to the RTI query. The state government, in September 2024, had directed all higher education institutions to ensure compliance with the POSH Act, and take proactive measures to tackle drug menace on campuses, but the RTI reply revealed that colleges have failed to comply with the order. When contacted by TNIE, P Shankar, Principal Secretary of Tamil Nadu Higher Education Department, said that it is mandatory to form ICC in educational institutions, and promised to take necessary steps to ensure compliance.
Hindustan Times
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Lawyers are not employees of Bar Council: HC refuses to direct for ICC under PoSH
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday refused to issue directions to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) to constitute an internal complaints committee (ICC) to deal with complaints of sexual harassment under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) at Workplace Act, 2013 as lawyers are not employers of the bar council. Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO) A division bench of justice Ajey Gadkari and justice Rajesh Patil was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Women Legal Association seeking a permanent grievance redressal mechanism to address complaints of sexual harassment against lawyers. The PoSH Act protects women from sexual harassment in the workplace and provides a mechanism for complaint redressal. It mandates the formation of ICCs in organizations with 10 or more employees to handle such complaints. Under the Act, the employer is responsible for creating a safe working environment, formulating a policy against sexual harassment and establishing an ICC. However, the court held that the provisions of the PoSH Act would not apply to the complaints of female lawyers of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the BCMG as there was no 'employee-employer' relationship between the lawyers and the bar councils. 'The provisions of the Act of 2013 apply when there is an employee-employer relationship. But in the case of advocates and the BCI or the BCMG, there is no such relationship as neither the BCI nor the BCMG can be said to be employers of the advocates and, thus the provisions of the Act of 2013 will not apply to complaints filed by lady lawyers,' the court said while rejecting the relief. 'It is, however, made clear that the provisions will apply on complaints filed by any of the employees or the committee members of the BCI and BCMG,' the court observed. It added that Section 35 of the Advocates Act provides action against professional or other misconduct by the lawyers. 'This is a remedy available for lady lawyers, to file complaints against any kind of harassment which may amount to professional or other misconduct,' the bench added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Lokpal says complaints not in prescribed format will not be accepted
India's anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal recently said corruption complaints not in the prescribed format will not be entertained. In a circular dated June 5, it said the Lokpal did not have power to review its orders while noting "increasing instances of complainants desirous of a reconsideration of the verdict given by it". A corruption complaint can be made in the office of the Lokpal of India in person, by hand at the reception/registry of its office, by post; or online ( The complaints received in Lokpal of India, by any mode, that are not in prescribed form shall not be entertained at any level and would be filed without any action, according to the circular on procedure for dealing with the complaints received in the anti-corruption ombudsman. "There are increasing instances of complainants desirous of a reconsideration or review of the orders passed by the Lokpal of India," it added. The circular went on, "It is a settled position of law, that the power of review cannot be exercised by a statutory body unless the statute specifically confers such power. The (Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act) Act of 2013 does not confer such express power of review to the Lokpal." The ombudsman also asked the competent authority, mandated to tender comments based on material, information and documents collected during preliminary inquiry, not to prejudge the merits of allegations. It found that the competent authority had been expressing opinion about the truthfulness of the allegations under consideration instead of comments about the existence or non-existence of the relevant facts. "It is thus observed that they are prejudging the merits of the allegations even before the inquiry is completed," the circular said. The Lokpal upon receiving complaints has two options -- order a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter or direct an investigation into the allegations by an agency including the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Lokpal said offering comments at the stage of preliminary inquiry by the competent authority wasn't about giving conclusive opinion concerning the allegation but a statement of fact based on the knowledge (either known personally or derived from official records) -- regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact alleged by the complainant. The applications/requests by the complainant, public servants or other parties concerned, seeking reports (including preliminary inquiry/investigation), and other related documents, after a complaint is disposed of, shall be forwarded to the agency/departments, who have prepared the report, for necessary action at their end, it added. The Lokpal also asked the officials, including inquiring or investigating agencies, or the associated departments, to maintain confidentiality. "No information should be passed on to members of the press, or other media communications without the prior approval of chairperson (Lokpal). Only authorised officer nominated as spokesperson of the Lokpal may interact with the press and media as per the mandate given to him by the competent authority," it said. The Lokpal said final orders, disposing of the registered complaint, should be uploaded on its website as early as possible, after the same were signed by the members concerned forming part of the proceedings unless the order(s) in the given case expressly provides that it shall not be so uploaded for maintaining confidentiality as mandated by the Act of 2013. "The order(s) with regard to the above excepted category, which are not to be uploaded on the official website, shall contain the heading on the top right side of the order in bold NOT TO BE UPLOADED'," it added. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Hindustan Times
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Corruption complaints sans prescribed format won't be entertained: Lokpal
New Delhi, India's anti-corruption ombudsman Lokpal recently said corruption complaints not in the prescribed format will not be entertained. In a circular dated June 5, it said the Lokpal did not have power to review its orders while noting "increasing instances of complainants desirous of a reconsideration of the verdict given by it". A corruption complaint can be made in the office of the Lokpal of India in person, by hand at the reception/registry of its office, by post; or online . The complaints received in Lokpal of India, by any mode, that are not in prescribed form shall not be entertained at any level and would be filed without any action, according to the circular on procedure for dealing with the complaints received in the anti-corruption ombudsman. "There are increasing instances of complainants desirous of a reconsideration or review of the orders passed by the Lokpal of India," it added. The circular went on, "It is a settled position of law, that the power of review cannot be exercised by a statutory body unless the statute specifically confers such power. The Act of 2013 does not confer such express power of review to the Lokpal." The ombudsman also asked the competent authority, mandated to tender comments based on material, information and documents collected during preliminary inquiry, not to prejudge the merits of allegations. It found that the competent authority had been expressing opinion about the truthfulness of the allegations under consideration instead of comments about the existence or non-existence of the relevant facts. "It is thus observed that they are prejudging the merits of the allegations even before the inquiry is completed," the circular said. The Lokpal upon receiving complaints has two options order a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter or direct an investigation into the allegations by an agency including the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Lokpal said offering comments at the stage of 'preliminary inquiry' by the competent authority wasn't about giving conclusive opinion concerning the allegation but a statement of fact based on the knowledge regarding the existence or non-existence of a fact alleged by the complainant. The applications/requests by the complainant, public servants or other parties concerned, seeking reports , and other related documents, after a complaint is disposed of, shall be forwarded to the agency/departments, who have prepared the report, for necessary action at their end, it added. The Lokpal also asked the officials, including inquiring or investigating agencies, or the associated departments, to maintain confidentiality. "No information should be passed on to members of the press, or other media communications without the prior approval of chairperson . Only authorised officer nominated as spokesperson of the Lokpal may interact with the press and media as per the mandate given to him by the competent authority," it said. The Lokpal said final orders, disposing of the registered complaint, should be uploaded on its website as early as possible, after the same were signed by the members concerned forming part of the proceedings unless the order in the given case expressly provides that it shall not be so uploaded for maintaining confidentiality as mandated by the Act of 2013. "The order with regard to the above excepted category, which are not to be uploaded on the official website, shall contain the heading on the top right side of the order in bold 'NOT TO BE UPLOADED'," it added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Lokpal dismisses all complaints against former Sebi chief Madhabi Puri Buch
Anti-corruption body, Lokpal, has dismissed all complaints made against Madhabi Puri Buch, the former chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), in connection with allegations linked to the Hindenburg Research report. The Lokpal stated there was no credible evidence to justify any investigation against Buch. "... We have concluded that the allegations in the complaint(s) are more based on presumptions and assumptions and not supported by any verifiable material and do not attract the ingredients of the offences in Part III of the Act of 1988, so as to direct an investigation therefore... accordingly, these complaints are disposed of," the order stated. The order further noted: "The complainant(s), being conscious of this position, advisedly attempted to articulate allegations independent of the stated report, but the analysis of the allegations by us ended with a finding that the same are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity." The decision was issued on May 28 by a six-member bench led by Lokpal chairperson Justice AM Khanwilkar. Five key allegations examined While reviewing the case, the Lokpal examined five main allegations made against Buch: Investments made by Buch and her husband Dhaval Buch in a fund reportedly linked to the Adani Group. Receipt of consultancy fees from companies such as Mahindra & Mahindra and Blackstone Inc., allegedly in return for favours. Alleged rental income from Wockhardt viewed as a quid pro quo. Gains from selling ICICI Bank ESOPs between 2017 and 2024. Claims of pretending to recuse herself from matters involving M&M and Blackstone while still being involved. The Lokpal found no substance in any of the claims. "The complainant(s), by making such unverified and flimsy or fragile allegations, only to sensationalise or so to say politicise the matter, has inevitably trivialised the process before the Lokpal. It is nothing short of vexatious proceedings actionable under Section 46 of the Act of 2013. We say no more," the order noted. Complaints linked to Hindenburg report The complaints, including one from Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, were based largely on a report by Hindenburg Research, which had alleged that Buch and her husband were involved in offshore funds tied to the Adani Group. The Lokpal clarified that the report alone could not form the basis for action. "The complainant(s), being conscious of this position, advisedly attempted to articulate allegations independent of the stated report, but the analysis of the allegations by us ended with a finding that the same are untenable, unsubstantiated and bordering on frivolity," the order said. Buch and her husband had denied the claims, saying the accusations were an attempt to tarnish her image and undermine the credibility of Sebi. The Adani Group had also called the report malicious and accused it of manipulating selective public information. Formal proceedings and responses Lokpal had first asked Buch to respond to the complaints on November 8 last year. She submitted her affidavit on December 7, 2024, responding to each allegation and raising preliminary objections. An oral hearing was held on December 19, 2024, where both sides were allowed to present their arguments. Additional written submissions were later made. Oral arguments were heard again on April 9, 2025. According to the order: "The advocate for the complainant in the second complaint made exhaustive oral submissions. The proxy counsel appearing for the complainant in the third complaint opted to file written submissions. Although the complainant in the third complaint has been represented by an advocate, neither the complainant nor the advocate appeared to make oral submissions." Buch was represented by a senior advocate who gave a detailed argument in her defence. After hearing both sides, the bench allowed more time for written submissions before reaching its decision. Allegations deemed speculative The Lokpal ultimately found the allegations to be speculative and lacking credible support. "... what the complainant(s) are inviting us to do is to conduct a roving inquiry into the allegations which are unfounded, speculative and bordering on frivolity," the order said. Madhabi Puri Buch served as Sebi chief from March 2, 2022, until the end of her term on February 28, 2025. The Lokpal's decision brings closure to the allegations made against her, reaffirming that there was no reliable evidence to support the claims.
