Political parties have no less than a moral irony, no matter what the legal rebate received from the Protection of Sexual Harassment Act (POSH Act), 2013, no one, no matter what the legal reason is! This is the result of both the moral negligence or silence of both our Parliament and the Supreme Court? In such a situation, the argument of the Supreme Court that the traditional employer-employee does not have a connection between the political party and their members, does not embrace anyone. It does not meet the practical test of experience.
It is fine that traditional employer-employees do not have a relationship between them, but both office and work culture. Even during the tour, the room of leaders and women workers is kept around while staying during the tour. Therefore, it would not be wrong to say that this gives political parties and their leaders endless right to exploitation of workers! Especially, when the Bharatiya Janata Party and the main opposition party Congress etc., who are in power of the Center and various states, are operated in a corporate style, their public relations, that is, the method of public relations and work, is almost the same when the wealth of the elected politicians also increases twice as much in five years, when many allegations of women and their close organizations on the leaders of their organizations are more than twice as much as the money of the elected politicians. If the legal exemption received by political parties and politics does not have to give legal intentions to their wrong intentions, what is the question?
Also read this: Modi government: The rise of women power
Most of the people of India know that the law -making organization of the country, ‘Parliament’, politicians sitting in the assembly mandals consider themselves ‘elite creatures’ and never enact their own stuck laws. At the same time, in order to serve their political interests, they often enact laws. In fact, due to unclear laws in the subjects of the same instincts, the country has become a paradise of lawyers like America. Any leader can contest elections from two places, but the names of two places are deliberately raised in the voter list. Investors are rich and consumers due to unclear laws in land-lower investment related things, education-health-business etc., etc.
The biggest irony is that as soon as it is elected, criminals/misdemeanors are also declared ‘honorable’. This situation is also shameful for administrative officials and judiciary. Also, there is a slap on the sacred thinking of Indian intellectuals, successful professional groups, universities. In such a situation, the question is that when the Supreme Court has the right to amend the law and Waqf Board Act etc., but in matters related to the leaders, his intelligence/enlightened thinking is ‘war’, snake smells which becomes the cause of ‘fatal diseases’ like statutory ‘social tetanus/mental toxin’.
The natural question is that our politicians can contest elections from jail, campaign, increase their salary and allowance on their own, leave ‘thieves doors’ for political donations, can speak anything in a befitting and out of Parliament, which hurts socio-national interests, etc. Their workers can wave the flag of Pakistan-Bangladesh, but there is never a rational debate on it! Belgaum social media has become their modern propaganda weapon. Crypto currency has become a means of their illegal transaction, but they do not remember the same law at all. This also affects the business interests of common businessmen.
The scales in the leprosy have now accepted that “membership in political parties is not like employment- it has neither regular salary nor contractual/job contracts.” The question is whether the workers are engaged in the service of the party day and night or not? Why are they not given honorarium? Is this for this reason they do administrative or social ‘brokerage’ and somehow they live as a local agent of elected leaders. Is this because corruption has not become etiquette? Who does not know that only the network of political activists who broke up among the officers and people’s representatives/ministers also broke the ‘hot meat’, so they also need to be brought under the purview of the posh Act 2013. The secret should not open, so it is a natural thing to kill each other in this business! Which is suppressed on the strength of administrative access. Despite this, some cases are seen and heard.
It is said that in the definition of Posh Act, the same organizations come where the relations of employees and employers are available on the basis of “employment and payment”. Since becoming a female worker in a political party does not mean getting ‘job’, but it is only a case of “membership” in which formal employment relations are not clear. In such a situation, the scope of the work of political parties (such as rallies, public relations, campaigns etc.) cannot be legally identified as a “permanent office or workplace”- it is extremely dynamic and unstable.
At the same time, since the effects and options of this law are effective, the exemption given to political parties creates doubts over the success of this law. Due to this exemption, if a female political worker has to face harassment, she cannot complain under the Poshe Act 2013. However, she can use the Indian Penal Code (IPC/IPC) or any other criminal law. Since the Supreme Court has also indicated that political parties are not even obliged to establish an internal grievance committee under the Poshe Act, 2013. Therefore, the natural question is why political parties this exemption? Do they make the same laws, just because!
However, some alternative measures are also available in other countries, which should be followed in India. Just as political parties in some countries voluntarily adopt internal reservation or complaint system for women, but there is no such obligation in India. At the same time, political parties have been exempted from the workplace women’s safety laws by the court because traditional salaried employment relations are not found there and their functioning is not like a “permanent office”. Therefore, the natural question is whether it is not a disturbing thinking and exemption? A nationwide debate on this should be conducted among political women activists itself.
Let us tell you that the Poshe Act, 2013 (‘Prevention of sexual harassment of women at workplace, prohibition and repatriation Act’) has clarified the definition of ’employer’ and ’employee’, under which the definition of employer is fixed. As it is clarified in Section 2 (G) of the posh Act, ’employer’ is the person who is the head of a department, organization, establishment or company or manage, supervisions or controls it. That is, any person operating the organization is considered as ’employer’. While the definition of ’employee’ is also widespread- it consists of regular, temporary, contract, trainee, voluntary or all persons working through agency. Persons working with salary, allowance or any other type of remuneration or without remuneration also fall under the category of ’employees’.
The main things of this law are that the definition of ’employer’ and ’employee’ is determined by the right to organizational relations and management and not only from salary or employment contract. At the same time, the posh Act, 2013 applies directly to those institutions where this relationship is clearly present. Thus, in the posh Act, the head/manager of the ’employer’ organization and ’employee’ in that organization (temporary, permanent, contract etc.) have been said to the person working in that organization. It is clear from this that this important law related to the protection of women has also had a political impact, despite the misuse of which the Indian Constitution is a strong, vibrant and favorable document, which still remains the mainstay of the democratic, judicial and moral foundation of the country. Therefore, it is expected that from the perspective being interpreted here, legal amendments will also be made without delay.
Needless to say that the Constitution is the supreme law, which separates the powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary and ensures the system of check-balance. With this, no person or institution can be above the law, which also protects civil rights and freedom at the time of political intervention. As far as political misuse and institutional security is concerned, some streams of the Constitution (eg Article 356) have been historically misused; But judicial stops such as the Supreme Court’s Bommai decisions have been successful in curbing such misuse, due to which the federal structure of the Constitution has remained safe.
It has also been observed in recent years that the Supreme Court and other institutions have been active from time to time to protect the basic objectives of the Constitution, even if political parties try to use the Constitution according to their interest. This is the adaptability and democratic values ​​of our constitution, which is commendable. There is flexibility in the constitution, so that the needs of the people, social balance and new rights can be included through the time. At the same time, the Constitution creates the foundation for national unity, minority security and social inclusion, which despite political upheaval, the country’s basic structure remains unbroken. Therefore, legal initiatives should be taken to bring political parties and organizations like this within the purview of the posh Act 2013. This will reduce the planned criminal thinking towards women.
As far as the logic in favor of the Constitution, Parliament and the Supreme Court is concerned, the Constitution and its patrons balance the rule of law, security of rights, transparency of system and executive structure. Judiciary and institutions control political intervention by constitutional interpretation. Due to its flexibility, the Constitution is successful in maintaining its purpose and relevance over time. Therefore, despite political pressure and temporary misuse, the Indian Constitution is capable of maintaining its original spirit, balance and stability- this is its greatest power and protection of Indian democracy.
Therefore, even in matters of physical abuse of women, bringing political parties under the purview of important laws like posh Act 2013 is a demand for changing high tech times and this will give them a wrong impact on the mentality of the society, because in such cases the whole possibility of survival of leaders is available in the existing law, which is under question. Therefore, it needs to be made more broad and impressive. This is also the demand of women.
– Kamlesh Pandey
Senior journalist and political analyst
(The author has his own views in this article.)