HC orders OLA to pay Rs 5 Lakh compensation in sexual harassment case involving cab driver
Bengaluru, Sep 30: The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed ANI Technologies, the parent company of OLA Cabs, to compensate a woman with Rs five lakh after she allegedly faced sexual harassment by one of their drivers during a trip in 2019.
Justice M G S Kamal, presiding over a single-judge bench, also instructed OLA's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to initiate a proper inquiry in line with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
The inquiry is to be concluded within 90 days, and a report must be submitted to the District Officer.
Additionally, ANI Technologies has been ordered to pay Rs 50,000 to cover the petitioner’s litigation expenses.
The Court emphasised that all parties must comply with Section 16 of the POSH Act, ensuring confidentiality of the identities involved. The Court had reserved its order on August 20.
The petitioner, who was subjected to the harassment, had initially approached OLA with her complaint, but the company's ICC, following advice from external legal counsel, declined to investigate, claiming it lacked jurisdiction.
The woman then sought relief from the High Court, requesting a directive for OLA to examine her complaint and for the Ministry of Women and Child Development to ensure the company adheres to POSH guidelines. She also urged the state to implement protective regulations for women and children using taxi services.
The Court has further directed the Karnataka State Road Safety Authority to expedite its proceedings regarding the notice issued to ANI Technologies, with a deadline of 90 days for completion. The state government has been ordered to pay a penalty of Rs one lakh for failing to respond adequately to the petition.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that OLA functions as a transport company, not merely a platform, and should bear responsibility for its drivers’ actions. The counsel for OLA, however, contended that the drivers are independent contractors, and not employees, and the company should not be held liable under labour laws.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Pressure groups trying to use social media to affect outcome of cases: Ex CJI Chandrachud
New Delhi, Nov 24: Former Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud on Sunday said social media is being used by special interest groups to influence outcome of cases and judges need to be wary of them.
He also noted that people nowadays want to form an opinion on the basis of 20 seconds they see on YouTube or any other social media platform, saying it poses a great danger.
"Today there are special interest groups, pressure groups who are trying to use social media to affect the minds of the courts and the outcomes of cases. Every citizen is entitled to understand what is the basis of a decision and to express their opinions on the decisions of the court. But when this goes beyond the decisions of the court and targets individual judges, then it sort of raises fundamental questions about - Is this truly freedom of speech and expression?" he said.
"Everybody, therefore wants to form an opinion in 20 seconds of what they see on YouTube or any social media platform. This poses a grave danger because the process of decision-making in the courts is far more serious. It is really nuanced that nobody has the patience or the tolerance today on social media to understand, and that is a very serious issue that is confronting the Indian judiciary," he said while speaking at NDTV India's Samvidhan@75 Conclave.
"Judges have to be very careful about the fact that they are constantly being subject to this barrage of special interest groups trying to alter the decisions of what happens in the courts," he said while replying to a question on whether trolling on social media impacts judges.
Chandrachud also said that in a democracy the power to decide the validity of laws is entrusted to the constitutional courts.
"Separation of powers postulates that law-making will be carried out by the legislature, execution of law will be carried out by the executive and the judiciary will interpret the law and decide the disputes. There are times when this comes under strain. Policy making is entrusted to the government in a democracy.
"When fundamental rights are involved, courts are duty bound under the Constitution to step in. Policy making is the job of the legislature, but deciding on its validity is the job and responsibility of the courts," Chandrachud said.
Defending the collegium system, the 50th CJI said there is a lot of misunderstanding about the process and it very nuanced and multi-layered.
"It's not as if the judiciary has exclusive role to play in appointment of judges," he said adding that first thing to be considered in seniority of judges.
When asked, if judges should enter politics, the former CJI said there is no bar in Constitution or in law to do so.
"Society continues to look at you as a judge even after retirement, therefore, things which are alright for other citizens to do would not be alright for judges to do even when they demit office.
"Primarily it is for every judge to take a call on whether a decision which he takes after retirement will have a bearing on people who assess the work which he did as a judge," he said.
Chandrachud retired on November 10 after a stint of two years as CJI.
