CONCEPT OF CONSENT IN POSH ACT

CONCEPT OF CONSENT IN POSH ACT 

In accordance with Indian Penal Code Section 375, consent is defined as "an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman communicates her willingness to engage in the specific sexual act through words, gestures, or any other means of verbal or nonverbal communication."

 In addition, the 2013 law amendment adds the following: "The amendment clarifies that the absence of resistance does not imply consent and defines 'consent' as an unambiguous agreement to engage in a specific sexual act."

According to the Madras High Court v. Anthony ruling, a woman can only be considered to have given her permission when she chooses to submit while still being completely free to exercise her moral and bodily authority.

It is always a deliberate and aware acceptance of what is offered to be done by another and concurred by the former; consent entails the exercise of a free right to withhold what is being consented to.

Due to the fact that PoSH cases essentially involve situations in which the victim has been the victim of undesirable behavior. It indicates that there was not sufficient consent in this instance. Additionally, it must be remembered that the law states "absence of resistance does not imply consent." The court aims to expand the notion that power relationships, worry about revenge, and societal shame can all act as barriers to consent.

The Supreme Court ruled in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mango Ram that, 

It is impossible to interpret the submission of the body out of fear of being terrorized as a sexual act with permission. When we examine this precedent in the context of a larger discussion of gender justice and violence against women, "going along with something" out of possible fear due to a direct or inferred threat is not consent.

The IC members should not inquire as to why the complaint did not respond negatively when handling the situation.

However, the situation must be viewed through the viewpoint of:

If the person had said no, would they have faced violence?

If they answered no, would they worry about any professional reprisals?

Was the responder in a position to influence the complainant in any way?