Government enacted Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, aiming to provide safe,secure working environment for women

The Union government has reaffirmed the expansive scope of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, stating that the law applies to all women regardless of age, employment status, or sector of work. The clarification was provided in the Rajya Sabha by Minister of State for Women and Child Development Savitri Thakur in response to a parliamentary query.

The Act, commonly referred to as the Sexual Harassment (SH) Act, was enacted to ensure safe and secure working conditions for women and to uphold constitutional guarantees of equality, dignity, and the right to livelihood.

Sexual harassment at the workplace, the government noted, constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g). Such conduct creates unsafe work environments and can limit women’s participation in economic activity, affecting broader goals of inclusive growth.

Sexual harassment law definition of aggrieved woman and employee scope

A key clarification highlighted by the government concerns the definition of an “aggrieved woman” under Section 2(a) of the Act. The provision defines an aggrieved woman as any woman, of any age, whether employed or not, who alleges sexual harassment at a workplace. This ensures that protection is not limited to formally employed individuals.

Officials said this broad definition reflects legislative intent to extend protection to all women present in a workplace environment, including visitors or those indirectly associated with the workplace.

The Act also adopts an expansive definition of “employee” under Section 2(f). It includes individuals employed on regular, temporary, ad hoc, or daily wage terms, as well as those engaged through agents. The definition explicitly covers contractual workers, apprentices, trainees, consultants, volunteers, and unpaid interns.

This provision ensures that formal employment or economic dependence on an employer is not a prerequisite for protection under the law.

Workplace and employer definition under Sexual Harassment Act explained

The term “employer” under Section 2(g) is defined to include heads of government departments, organizations, and institutions, as well as individuals responsible for management, supervision, and control in private workplaces. The definition also extends to those fulfilling contractual obligations and, in the case of domestic workers, households employing such workers.

The Act further defines “workplace” in broad terms under Section 2(o), covering government bodies, private enterprises, non-governmental organizations, and institutions engaged in commercial, professional, educational, industrial, or health-related activities.

The definition includes both organized and unorganized sectors and extends to home-based workers, field assignments, and situations where women are in transit for work.

The government described the legislation as inclusive and intersectional in design, aimed at addressing workplace realities across diverse sectors and employment arrangements.

Judicial interpretation has reinforced this wide scope. In the 2013 case of Jaya Kodate v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, the Bombay High Court observed that the definition of workplace was deliberately kept broad to ensure no instance of sexual harassment goes unaddressed.

The clarification in Parliament comes as workplace safety continues to be a central issue in discussions on women’s workforce participation and economic empowerment.

The government maintained that the law’s framework is intended to ensure that no woman, irrespective of her role or employment status, is excluded from protection against sexual harassment in any workplace setting.

WHO urges roll-out of first long-acting HIV prevention jab

Injectable lenacapavir – LEN, for short – is a highly effective, long-acting antiretroviral alternative to daily oral pills and other shorter-acting options, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

“While an HIV vaccine remains elusive, lenacapavir is the next best thing: a long-acting antiretroviral shown in trials to prevent almost all HIV infections among those at risk,” said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General.

Test kit advantage

WHO’s support for the injectable drug is significant because HIV prevention efforts are stagnating around the world.

To make it easier for people to receive the injection close to home, the UN agency also recommends the use of rapid testing kits for the disease, as opposed to “complex, costly procedures”.

According to the agency, 1.3 million people contracted HIV in 2024; people most impacted were sex workers, men who have sex with men, transgender people, people who inject drugs, people in prisons, and children and teens.

“WHO is committed to working with countries and partners to ensure this innovation reaches communities as quickly and safely as possible,” insisted Tedros, in comments during the 13th International AIDS Society Conference (IAS 2025) on HIV Science, in Kigali, Rwanda.

The recommendation for LEN is also in line with the US health authorities which approved it in June.

Call for implementation

Although access to the LEN injection remains limited outside clinical trials today, WHO urged governments, donors and partners to incorporate LEN “immediately” within national combination HIV-prevention programmes.

Other WHO-supported HIV-prevention options include daily oral tablets, injectable cabotegravir – which is injected once every two months – and the dapivirine vaginal ring, as part of a growing number of tools to end the HIV epidemic.

Funding dilemma

Amid massive funding cuts to the global effort to end HIV-AIDS – including the leading US Government programme launched in 2003, PEPFAR, focusing on combating the disease in Africa – WHO also issued new operational guidance on how to sustain priority HIV services.

“We have the tools and the knowledge to end AIDS…what we need now is bold implementation of these recommendations, grounded in equity and powered by communities,” said Dr Meg Doherty, Director of WHO’s Department of Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programmes and incoming Director of Science, Research, Evidence and Quality for Health.

HIV remains a major global public health issue.

By the end of 2024, an estimated 40.8 million people were living with HIV with an estimated 65 per cent in Africa. Approximately 630,000 people died from HIV-related causes globally, and an estimated 1.3 million people acquired HIV, including 120,000 children.

More positively, access to HIV drugs continues to expand, with 31.6 million people receiving treatment in 2024, up from 30.3 million a year earlier. Without anti-retroviral medication, the HIV virus attacks the body’s immune system, leading ultimately to the onset of AIDS.

Source link

COVID Side Effect: Using germicidal lamp damages corneas in eyes

In a paper published in the journal of Ocular Immunology and Inflammation, physicians from the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine reported that several patients using germicidal lamps in an attempt to sanitize against the coronavirus, developed painful inflammation of the cornea, a condition called photokeratitis. These consumer-available ultraviolet (UV) emitting devices were being used in an attempt to eliminate coronavirus from homes and offices.

“During the height of the pandemic, we noticed an increased number of patients coming in with irritation, pain and sensitivity to light,” said first author and Bascom Palmer resident Jesse Sengillo, M.D. “We realized this was after direct exposure to germicidal lamps that emit UV light in the C range to kill bacteria and viruses. This can be quite a painful experience for the patient, but with prompt topical lubrication and antibiotics to prevent infection, patients often do very well.”

UV photokeratitis occurs when the cornea is overexposed to ultraviolet radiation. This can happen at high elevation, where less UV rays are absorbed by the atmosphere, or near water, snow or other reflective surfaces in the environment. A few hours after exposure, patients experience burning in their eyes and sometimes intense light sensitivity.

Numerous germicidal lamps are on the market, and while they may be safe for at-home use, customers need to pay close attention to manufacturer recommendations to prevent damage to the eyes and skin.

“The patients we met were not aware of these recommendations, and many were unknowingly exposed at work” said co-author and fellow resident Anne Kunkler. “For UV-C emitting devices, it is best to leave the room while the device is on. Our patients were directly exposed to the light for various lengths of time. A few hours later, they felt discomfort and sought medical attention.”

Feeling eye discomfort?

Dr. Sengillo and colleagues encourage anyone feeling eye discomfort after exposure to one of these devices to promptly seek medical attention a medical professional from an ophthalmologist.

While germicidal lamps are being purchased to protect people during the pandemic, this study did not attempt to address whether they are effective in destroying coronaviruses. “There are many COVID-19 related publications recently. It is important that we disseminate information accurately and responsibly to avoid public confusion.”

Dr. Sengillo and colleagues note that some UV-C emitting germicidal devices are proven to be effective in killing various microbes and viruses, but to the authors knowledge, they have not been tested against COVID-19 specifically yet. “Our study was not designed to answer that question. If you choose to use these lamps, just make sure to follow manufacturer recommendations closely to avoid unnecessary injury,” said Dr. Sengillo.