By Rubina Khatib Siddiqui
POSH Trainer and Workplace Law Resource Person, working with government departments
and organisations on workplace safety and gender sensitisation
Why a High Court Judgment Matters for Workplaces
A High Court judgment from the Circuit Bench at Port Blair brings us back to a question we
often think is simple but isn’t: what does consent really mean?
Before going any further, this is not about the individuals in that case. It is about what the
judgment tells us more broadly, especially for workplaces where people interact closely every
day.
The court examined a situation many would recognise in some form, a relationship between
colleagues, a promise of marriage, and things falling apart later. But the real issue before the
court was not whether the relationship failed. It was whether the consent given during that
relationship was genuine to begin with.
The law makes an important distinction here. Not every broken promise becomes a criminal
matter. People change their minds, relationships don’t work out, and the law does not step in
for that alone. But where a promise is made without any intention of keeping it, and is used
only to persuade someone into a sexual relationship, that changes things. In such cases, the
law treats the consent as not truly free, because it was based on something untrue.
This idea may sound technical, but in everyday terms, it is quite simple. If someone agrees to
something because they believe something that is not real, then their agreement is not fully
informed. And that makes all the difference.
What makes this judgment particularly relevant is that the case arose within a disciplined
service environment. Such workplaces often involve long hours together, shared
responsibilities, and a strong sense of trust built over time. In these settings, personal and
professional boundaries can overlap without anyone immediately realising it.
This is where the conversation becomes important under the POSH framework.
Many assume workplace complaints are always about clear-cut harassment. In reality, that is
not always how situations unfold. Often, they begin as relationships that appear mutual.
There is comfort, communication, and emotional support. Over time, however, expectations
develop, assurances are given, and decisions are made based on those assurances.
When things later break down, it becomes easy to say, “But there was consent.” The more
difficult question, and the one the law asks is: what shaped that consent?
Was it given freely?
Was it based on complete and honest information?
Or was it shaped by a belief that later proved to be untrue?
These are not easy questions, but they are necessary ones.
If a “yes” comes from trust built on something untrue, then the foundation itself is weak.
Another aspect the judgment indirectly brings into focus is delay in reporting. In many such
situations, individuals do not speak up immediately. This is often misunderstood.
In reality, a person may remain silent because they trust the relationship or believe it will lead
to something more stable, such as marriage. It is often only when that belief breaks that they
begin to question what has happened. Such delay does not automatically make a complaint
doubtful. More often, it reflects the emotional complexity of the situation.
For organisations, the lesson is not about controlling personal relationships. That is neither
practical nor desirable. The real takeaway lies in understanding context.
Policies can define harassment, but they cannot always capture how people think, feel, and
make decisions within relationships. That is where Internal Committees and leadership must
exercise careful judgment.
It is not enough to look at whether there was a “yes” at some point. It is equally important to
understand the circumstances in which that “yes” was given.
Ultimately, this judgment reminds us of something fundamental.
Consent is not just about saying “yes.” It is about the freedom and clarity behind that “yes.”
And if that clarity is missing, if the decision is based on something untrue, the law does not
treat it as real consent.
For workplaces, this is an important lesson. Respecting boundaries is not enough. Understanding how those boundaries are shaped is equally important. Because a safe workplace is not just one where rules are followed, but one where people feel secure, respected, and able to make informed choices.
Because in the end, a “yes” built on illusion is simply a quiet form of “no” that the law
refuses to ignore.
