DR SOHAIL MALIK v. UNION OF INDIA
POSH Act: Jurisdiction of ICC in Inter-Departmental Sexual Harassment Complaints; Interpretation of Section 11 and the Scope of 'Workplace'.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 1415
Decision Date: 10-12-2025
List of Laws
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Information Technology Act, 2000; Constitution of India; Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964; Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; Principles of Statutory Interpretation
- Facts: An Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer alleged that an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer sexually harassed her at her workplace. The IRS officer (Appellant) challenged the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted at the IAS officer's workplace (Department of Food and Public Distribution), arguing that only the ICC of his own department (Department of Revenue) could inquire into the complaint. An FIR was also registered against the Appellant under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Procedural Posture: The Appellant filed an Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking to set aside the notice/order issued by the ICC of the Department of Food and Public Distribution. The CAT dismissed the OA, which was upheld by the High Court of Delhi. The Appellant then preferred a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
- Issue: 1. Does the ICC constituted in one department of the Central Government have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) against an employee of a different department? 2. Does the phrase "where the respondent is an employee" in Section 11 of the POSH Act mandate that ICC proceedings must be instituted and carried out at the workplace of the respondent instead of the workplace of the aggrieved woman? 3. Under Section 13, how is action supposed to be taken by the department of the 'respondent' in pursuance of the findings of the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman's department? 4. Whether the proceedings of the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman, in the present case, have caused any prejudice to the Appellant, warranting interference by this Court?
- Holding: 1. Yes, the ICC constituted in one department of the Central Government has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment under the POSH Act against an employee of a different department. 2. No, the phrase "where the respondent is an employee" in Section 11 of the POSH Act does not mandate that ICC proceedings must be instituted and carried out at the workplace of the respondent. 3. The ICC at the aggrieved woman's workplace conducts a preliminary inquiry, and its recommendations are sent to the employer of the respondent for further action, including disciplinary proceedings. 4. No prejudice has been caused to the Appellant.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that a textual and contextual interpretation of Section 11 of the POSH Act, along with the Act's intent as a social welfare legislation, supports the jurisdiction of the ICC at the aggrieved woman's workplace. The word "where" in Section 11 refers to a situation or contingency, not a specific place. The POSH Act's definition of "workplace" is broad, encompassing any place visited by the employee during employment. The Court emphasized that the ICC at the aggrieved woman's workplace conducts a fact-finding inquiry, and the employer of the respondent is obligated to act on its recommendations. The Court also referred to the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and an Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2015, to clarify the dual role of the ICC in conducting preliminary inquiries and acting as the inquiring authority in disciplinary proceedings.
🔒 For Members Only