Nearly six months after a complete ‘gag’ order to media reporting and uploading of judgements on cases pertaining to the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (POSH) Act, 2013, the Bombay High Court has clarified that it was ‘case specific’ and not applicable to all matters under the (POSH) act.

Justice G.S. Patel, who had passed the earlier order of September 24, 2021, acknowledged that “it remained to be specifically noted in that order that “the directions had to be confined” to that particular case and could not have any wider or larger applicability.

Justice Patil further noted that any such rules of general applicability would have to be approved by the full court, and a single judge hearing a particular matter within his rostered assignment has “no authority or jurisdiction to issue any rules binding the entire court”.

“It is only the full court or the Chief Justice which or who can do that. Very possibly, such rules might even have been required to be notified in the official gazette. None of this was in contemplation at any time on September 24, 2021,” Justice Patil added.

The clarifications came on Thursday while disposing an intervention application filed by the Forum Against Oppression of Women under the impressions that the guidelines were general in nature.

FAOW senior advocate Indira Jaisingh contended that these guidelines were not only against the letter and spirit of the POSH Act, but also contrary to the very concept of open courts, which are an essential aspect of judicial determinations globally, and now it was being cited by men in other cases.

In the previous order (IANS – Sept 27, 2021), Justice Patel had said all such matters shall be heard either “in camera” or in the judge’s chambers, orders cannot be passed in open court, or uploaded on the high court’s official website, and the media has been prohibited from reporting the proceedings or the verdicts without the court’s permission.

Virtually making POSH cases at par with the existing guidelines in rape cases, the order warned that violation of the same or publishing the concerned party’s names or other details, even if in the public domain, would be treated as contempt of court.

He observed that since there are no set guidelines for such matters, his initial order would set a working protocol for the future orders, hearings, case file management, and would be revised or modified, as needed.

The ‘minimum guidelines’ issued dealt with the format of filing orders in POSH cases, the filing protocols, grant of access by the registry, hearings, directions to the certified copy department, public access, breach, etc.

“Both sides and all parties and advocates, as also witnesses, are forbidden from disclosing the contents of any order, judgment, or filing to the media or publishing any such material in any mode or fashion by any means, including social media, without specific leave of the court,” the court said on the media disclosure part.

Justice Patel added that it was imperative to protect the identities of the parties from disclosure, even accidental disclosure in such proceedings, in the interests of both sides, and the endeavour would be to “anonymise the identities of the parties”.

The orders came in a hearing of a POSH case involving a major blue-chip company and its woman staffer — who was represented by advocate Abha Singh.

The other highlights were: Parties’ names shall be replaced with “A v B”, etc., the order will mention them as only ‘Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1, etc.’, no reference to any ‘personally identifiable information (PII) like email, mobile or phone numbers, addresses, etc,’ and ‘no witness names and addresses’ shall be mentioned.

All orders/judgements would be delivered in private, not in open court but only in the judge’s chambers or in camera, with online or hybrid facility not allowed, in the presence of the litigants and lawyers and others including most of the court staff to leave the court.

“Orders can’t be published without court’s direction, and if any order is to be released into public domain, it will require a specific order of the court. This will be on the condition that only the fully anonymised version of the order of judgement is let into the public domain for publication,” said Justice Patel in the earlier order.

It forbade both sides, all parties and advocates and witnesses from disclosing the contents of any order, judgment, or filing to the media or publishing any such material in any mode or fashion by any means, including social media, without specific leave of the court, as per the guidelines.

There are strict restrictions barring anyone other than the Advocate-on-Record to inspect or copy any filings/orders, the entire record will be kept sealed and not handed over to anybody without the court’s order, witness depositions would be strictly not uploaded under any circumstances, and so on.