Quiz 12 — POSH Act, 2013 & POCSO Act, 2012

Statements 2, 3 and 4 are correct. Section 7(1)(c) provides for "two Members, of whom at least one shall be a woman", nominated from NGOs or associations committed to the cause of women or persons familiar with issues of sexual harassment (statement 2). Two provisos follow: "at least one of the nominees should, preferably, have a background in law or legal knowledge" (statement 3, a preference rather than a mandate) and "at least one of the nominees shall be a woman belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or the Other Backward Classes or minority community notified by the Central Government" (statement 4). Statement 1 is false. The words "Provided that at least one-half of the total Members so nominated shall be women" are the proviso to s.4(2) and govern the Internal Committee only; s.7 has no fraction rule. The Local Committee's women come clause by clause: the Chairperson under s.7(1)(a) and the member under s.7(1)(b) must be women, and so must at least one clause (c) nominee. That gives at least three women among its five members, but through those clauses, not through a one-half proviso. (b) imports the s.4(2) proviso into s.7 and drops statement 3; (c) accepts statement 1 along with the rest; (d) rejects statement 3, though "should, preferably" is the proviso's own wording: a law background is preferred, not required.

Both statements are correct, and Statement-II explains Statement-I. Section 3(2) lists five circumstances that, "if it occurs, or is present in relation to or connected with any act or behavior of sexual harassment may amount to sexual harassment": an implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her employment; an implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in her employment; an implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status; interference with her work or creating an intimidating, offensive or hostile work environment; and humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or safety. Clause (iii) is exactly what Statement-I describes, so Statement-II is the reason Statement-I is correct. Physical contact is not required: s.2(n) lists "physical contact and advances" as only the first of five forms, alongside a demand or request for sexual favours, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, and any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. (b) treats the two as unrelated, though s.3(2)(iii) is the very provision that makes the threat count; (c) rejects Statement-II, which reproduces s.3(2)(iii) with its opening words; (d) rejects Statement-I on the "no touch, no harassment" reading that s.2(n)(ii)–(v) and s.3(2) rule out.

(a) is correct: both statements are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I. Section 26(1) punishes an employer who fails to constitute an Internal Committee with "fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees". Only s.26(2), for an employer who, "after having been previously convicted of an offence punishable under this Act subsequently commits and is convicted of the same offence", adds twice the punishment (subject to the maximum) and cancellation, withdrawal or non-renewal of the licence or registration he needs for his business or activity. So licence action cannot follow a first conviction. Prosecution is also narrow: under s.27 no court takes cognizance except on a complaint by the aggrieved woman or a person authorised by the Internal or Local Committee, no court below a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of the first class tries the offence, and every offence under the Act is non-cognizable. (b) denies the link, though s.26(2) is the reason licence action waits for a second conviction; (c) rejects Statement-II, which paraphrases s.26(2); (d) rejects Statement-I, the common belief that a single default can cost the licence.