Jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act: A Landmark Clarification by the Supreme Court
By Advocate Avichal Pandey, Allahabad High Court
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr. (2025 INSC 1415), has delivered a significant ruling clarifying the jurisdictional scope of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
This judgment resolves a crucial ambiguity:-
Can an ICC of one department inquire into allegations against an employee belonging to another department?
The Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative, reinforcing the remedial and victim-centric framework of the POSH Act.
Factual Background
The case arose from allegations of sexual harassment made by a senior IAS officer against an IRS officer. The incident allegedly occurred at the complainant’s workplace (Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi), though the accused belonged to a different department.
Key developments included:-
●Registration of an FIR under relevant provisions of the IPC.
●Filing of a complaint under Section 9 of the POSH Act before the ICC of the complainant’s department.
●Challenge by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and subsequently the High Court, contesting the jurisdiction of the ICC.
The primary contention was that only the ICC of the respondent’s own department had jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry.
Core Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined the following key issues:-
1. Whether an ICC can exercise jurisdiction over an employee of another department.
2. Whether Section 11 of the POSH Act restricts inquiry to the respondent’s workplace.
3. How disciplinary action is to be implemented when inquiry is conducted by a different ICC.
Interpretation of Section 11: Procedural, Not Jurisdictional
●A central argument revolved around the phrase “where the respondent is an employee” under Section 11 of the POSH Act.
The Court rejected the narrow interpretation advanced by the appellant and held:-
●The term “where” does not denote location, but rather a conditional situation.
●Section 11 merely prescribes procedure, not jurisdictional limitations.
●It clarifies how inquiry should be conducted depending on the status of the respondent (employee or otherwise).
Thus, the provision cannot be read to mean that only the ICC of the respondent’s workplace has jurisdiction.
Expansive Meaning of ‘Workplace’
The Court emphasized the broad definition of “workplace” under Section 2(O) of the POSH Act, which includes:-
●Any place visited during the course of employment
●Locations beyond the traditional office setup
This interpretation ensures that protection extends beyond physical office boundaries, aligning with the realities of modern professional interactions.
Key Finding: ICC of Aggrieved Woman’s Workplace Has Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court categorically held:-
●The ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman has jurisdiction to entertain complaints.
●The respondent need not belong to the same department.
The term “respondent” under the POSH Act includes any person against whom a complaint is made.
This interpretation ensures accessibility and prevents procedural barriers for victims.
Distinction Between Inquiry and Disciplinary Action
A crucial clarification made by the Court is the distinction between:-
●Fact-finding inquiry by the ICC
●Disciplinary action by the employer of the respondent
The Supreme Court held:-
●The ICC only conducts the inquiry and submits its findings.
●The employer of the respondent is responsible for acting on those findings under Section 13 of the POSH Act.
Thus, jurisdiction of inquiry and authority of punishment are distinct yet complementary functions.
Purpose-Oriented Interpretation of the POSH Act
The Court adopted a purposive interpretation, emphasizing that:-
●The POSH Act is a social welfare legislation.
●It seeks to protect fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
Any restrictive interpretation would defeat the object of ensuring a safe and dignified workplace for women.
The Court warned that forcing victims to approach ICCs in unfamiliar workplaces would create:-
●Procedural inconvenience
●Psychological barriers
●Deterrence from reporting harassment
Rejection of Appellant’s Argument on Alternative Remedy
The appellant argued that in cases involving outsiders, the only remedy lies under criminal law.
The Court rejected this contention, holding that:-
●Remedies under the POSH Act and criminal law are not mutually exclusive.
●Section 19(h) merely imposes a duty on employers to assist in criminal proceedings, but does not exclude POSH remedies.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling has far-reaching implications:-
1. Strengthening Access to Justice
Victims can approach the ICC at their own workplace without procedural hurdles.
2. Eliminating Jurisdictional Ambiguity
Clarifies that ICC jurisdiction is not confined to departmental boundaries.
3. Reinforcing Victim-Centric Approach
Ensures that legal interpretation aligns with the protective intent of the POSH Act.
4. Harmonizing Inquiry and Disciplinary Mechanisms
Establishes a workable framework where different authorities perform distinct roles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India marks a progressive step in strengthening workplace safety laws in India. By adopting a purposive and expansive interpretation of the POSH Act, the Court has ensured that technicalities do not defeat substantive justice.
The ruling underscores a crucial principle:
The mechanism under the POSH Act must remain accessible, effective, and aligned with the dignity and rights of women at the workplace.
Post a Comment