COMMENTARY
has made firm-specific heavy investments,
inducement/force/intimidation to enter into
a contract, disclosure of material risks,
competitive performance-based payments,
and sharing of production risks. Further, it
is not known how widely the model contract
agreement will be adopted by the agencies
unless it is a conditionality to avail of cer-
tain other incentives or policies. The vulner-
ability of the growers due to fluctuations in
market prices needs to be reduced by mak-
ing supermarkets offer minimum purchase
prices, not market-price-based premiums.
Also, provisions for legally binding and
clearly worded rules for fair treatment
of suppliers, an independent authority like
a retail commission to supervise and regu-
late supermarkets for supplier, consumer,
and labour aspects and support to local re-
tailers, are required. Such an agency
should ban buying of products below cost
and selling below cost, improve local tradi-
tional markets for small growers, establish
multi-stakeholder initiatives in the chains
and provide support to small producers
and traditional food retailers.
Sexual Harassment:
Not Fitting the Bill
Mridul Eapen
In 1997 the Supreme Court issued
the Visakha guidelines to prevent
sexual harassment of women at
the workplace until a suitable law
was passed. A draft bill in 2005
was followed by yet another draft
in 2007. A report of a discussion
in Kochi.
Email: mridul@cds.ac.in
20
On the other side, farmers’ organisa-
tions and non-governmental organisations
need to monitor and negotiate more equi-
table contracts with the supermarkets. Pro-
ducers’ organisations amplify the political
voice of smallholder producers, reduce the
costs of marketing of inputs and outputs,
and provide a forum for members to share
information, coordinate activities, and
make collective decisions. On the other
hand, they also lower the transaction costs
for the processing/marketing/retailing
agencies working with growers. The gov-
ernment should also play an enabling role
through legal provisions and institutional
mechanisms, like helping farmer coopera-
tives, producer companies and producer
groups, to facilitate smooth functioning of
the contract farming system, and not inter-
vene in contracts directly.
References
Bukeviciute, L, A Dierx and F Ilzkovits (2009): “The
Functioning of the Food Supply Chain and Its
Effect on Food Prices in the European Union”,
European Commission, Directorate General for
Economic and Financial Affairs, Occasional Paper
No 47, European Communities (EC).
T
here are reports in the media (see
for instance, The New Indian Express,
24 May 2010) that the much awaited
bill against sexual harassment (SH) at the
workplace is likely to be introduced in
Parliament. The draft bill had been put up
on the web site of the Union Ministry
of Women and Child D­eve­lopment for
comments and suggestions until 31 March
2007. Three years have gone by and it has
still not been placed in Parliament. A
group of concerned citizens – academicians,
advocates, activists, and policymakers –
met in Kochi in early May to take a fresh
look at the bill and submit comments/sug-
gestions anew.
Addressing the Issue
This bill derives from the Supreme Court
(SC) judgment in 1997 in the Visakha and
august 21, 2010  vol xlv no 34  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly
Cadilhon J-J, P Moustier, N D Poole, P T G Tam and
A P Fearne (2006): “Traditional vs Modern Food
Systems? Insights from Vegetable Supply Chains
to Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam)”, Development
Policy Review, 24(1), 31-49.
Chen K, A W Shepherd and C da Silva (2005): “Changes
in Food Retailing in Asia: Implications of Super-
market Procurement Practices for Farmer and
Traditional Marketing Systems”, AMMF Occa-
sional Paper 8, FAO, Rome.
Durand, C (2007): “Externalities from Foreign Direct
Investment in the Mexican Retailing Sector”,
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31 (3), 393-411.
IFAD (2005): Organic Agriculture and Poverty Reduc-
tion in Asia: China and India Focus, Thematic
Evaluation, International Fund for Agricultural
Development, Report No 1664, Rome, July.
Pritchard, B, C P Gracy and M Godwin (2010): “The
Impacts of Supermarket Procurement on Farm-
ing Communities in India: Evidence from Rural
Karnataka”, Development Policy Review, 28(4): 435-56.
Sako, M (1992): Prices, Quality and Trust – Inter-firm
Relations in Britain and Japan (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press).
Singh, S (2009): Organic Produce Supply Chains in
India: Organisation and Governance (New Delhi:
Allied Publishers).
Singh, S and N Singla (2010): “Fresh Food Retail Chains
in India: Impacts on Small Primary Vegetable Pro-
ducers and Traditional Fruit and Vegetable Re-
tailers”, Final Report, CMA, IIM, Ahmedabad, April.
Srivathsan, A (2007): “Regulating Space”, Frontline,
13 July, 25-27.
Stichele, M V, Sanne van der Wal and J Oldenziel
(2006): “Who Reaps the Fruit? Critical Issues in
the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Chain”, Centre for
Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO),
Amsterdam, June.
O­thers vs the State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997
SC 3011), which came to be known as the
V­isakha guidelines (incorporating Gene­ral
Recommendation 19 of Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW)) to protect women against
sexual harassment at the workplace since
the then civil and penal laws in India did
not contain adequate provisions to address
this form of violence against women. The
guidelines were to be “binding and en-
forceable in law until suitable legislation is
enacted to occupy the field”. While the
guidelines were based on the problems of
women working in rural India facing
threats to their life and person, the SC
judgment was beneficial to women in the
organised sector and some complaints
were filed and redressal given under the
Visakha judgment.
A few years later the first attempt was
made to frame a suitable draft legislation
with considerable involvement of and
pressure from women’s organisations.
This was called “The Protection against
Sexual Harassment of Women Bill 2005”.
However, that too gathered dust till it was
replaced by “The Protection of Women

against Sexual Harassment at Workplace
Bill 2007” which focused specifically on
SH at the workplace, the reason presuma-
bly being that the 2005 bill was too wide-
ranging and hence difficult to implement.
Not in the Spirit of Visakha
By defining an aggrieved woman as “...any
female person/persons, whether major or
minor, who alleges that she/they have
been subjected to sexual harassment...”,
the 2007 draft bill fails to imbibe the spirit
of the Visakha guidelines by (a) emphasis-
ing harassment at (presumably within)
the workplace; (b) its definition of an
“a­ggrieved woman”; and (c) its silence on
third party harassment. While the first
ipso facto excludes harassment of working
women outside the workplace and work-
ing hours, the second excludes “minors”
who could be employed (of course no up-
per age limit has been prescribed for the
employee but the aggrieved woman being
defined as a woman employee leaves its
application to minors in doubt), and the
third does not consider situations where
SH occurs as a result of an act or omission
by any third party or o­utsider. In such cas-
es the employer and person in charge
must take all steps n­ecessary and reason-
able to assist the a­ffected person in terms
of support and preventive action.
Interestingly, in the section on Definitions,
Sexual Harassment has not been defined
(sub-section on third party harassment
could be included here). At the same time,
it must be appreciated that its definition of
workplace has been enlarged by including
house/dwelling place employing domestic
workers and specifically mentioning un­
organised sector within its ambit. The
institutional framework envisaged under
the bill is the constitution of an internal
complaints committee (ICC) in each estab-
lishment which would look into complaints
and appointment of a d­istrict officer for
every district (either a district magistrate
(DM), additional DM, collector or deputy
collector) to carry out the functions under
this Act. Where such committees cannot
be formed, particularly in segments of the
u­norganised sector, local complaints c­om­
mittees (LCC) are to be set up by the district
officer at the block level.
However, the language of the bill is still
couched in terms of the organised sector
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   august 21, 2010  vol xlv no 34
establishments, for instance, Chapter V –
“Duties of Employer”. If the benefits of the
LCC are meant to reach the unorganised
sector women workers, the constitution
and functions of these committees need
to be fleshed out much more and reach
out to levels lower than the block, parti­
cularly in ensuring a sensitive organi­
sational policy – training workers and
senior staff and raising awareness about
the problem which is critical to prevent
SH. Chapter V should thus be Duties of
Employer/District Officer. Also the LCC
should have a scheduled caste/scheduled
tribe (SC/ST) member.
The bill treats SH as a civil dispute and
provides for conciliation and compensa-
tion. There is no enabling provision that
gives the police powers of investigation in
such cases. However, the Visakha guide-
lines had provided for criminal proceed-
ings where such conduct in terms of SH
amounts to a specific offence under the
I­ndian Penal Code (IPC) or under any
o­ther law. This can be built into the bill by
providing a clause that evidence collected
in such cases by the complaints committee
can be treated as evidence in court if the
aggrieved woman wants to take it up.
While there is no prohibition on moving
an appropriate forum, it should be stressed
in the bill as is the case in the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV)
Act 2005. Otherwise, such complaints may
not be taken on file by other enforcement
authorities. (It may be noted that the gov-
ernment of Kerala’s amendment in 2000
to the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Rules 1958 in the light of the
Visakha guidelines covered both the pro-
vision for criminal proceedings and third
party harassment.)
Section 14 of the draft bill enjoins keep-
ing the identity of the woman/respondent
confidential. It states
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Right to Information Act, 2005, the contents
of the complaint made under sub-section (1)
of Section 7, the identity and addresses of
the aggrieved woman, respondent and wit-
nesses, any information relating to concili­
ation and enquiry proceedings, recommen-
dations of the committee or the local com-
mittee, as the case may be, and the a­ction
taken by the employer under the provisions
of this Act shall not be published, communi-
cated or made known to the public, press
and media.
COMMENTARY
However, this can work against the in-
terests of the woman at times since no
provision has been made to inform her of
the progress of the enquiry. Hence, “ex-
cept with the prior consent of the victim in
writing” could be added to the Section af-
ter “...press and media”.
A proviso should be added to Sec-
tion  14: Provided that on completion of
the proceedings, a copy of the complaint,
enquiry report and the recommendations
of the committee, shall be made available
to the victim upon request by her in writing.
Regressive Provision
A particularly regressive part, added re-
cently in the draft is Section 12 (1), which
states that if the allegation of SH is found
to be false, the complainant can be puni­
shed for it. This creates enormous space
for employers to manipulate the commit-
tee and the evidence to be stacked up
against the woman. It will only ensure
that women will desist from making com-
plaints due to the fear that employers or
the committee could act against them.
This part must be deleted.
In conclusion, it may be stated that even
if we confine the bill to the protection of
women against SH at the workplace, the
suggestions made above can be incorpo-
rated to retain the spirit of the Visakha
guidelines, while at the same time ensur-
ing that its ambit does not become very
wide and unmanageable.
[This article is based on a discussion held by
members of a working group on sexual har-
assment at the workplace constituted by the
Planning Board and National University of
Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi on 31  May.
Participants in the discussion were: Sindhu
Tulaseedharan, Shri Raghavan Unni, Aleyam-
ma Vijayan, J  Sandhya, Ajitha, Sheeba Dhar,
K K Preeta, Seema Bhaskaran, T  Radhamony,
D R Shobha, Geetha, K Jaya, K  S Preeta and
Mridul Eapen.]
available at
CNA Enterprises Pvt Ltd
27/13 Ground Floor
Chinna Reddy Street, Egmore
Chennai 600 008
Ph: 44-45508212/13
21