Bench: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi
The Supreme Court held that complainants under the POSH Act 2013 can approach the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of their own workplace to lodge complaints against harassment by an employee of a different workplace.
An aggrieved woman filed a complaint against the appellant before the ICC of her workplace. The ICC summoned the appellant, who challenged its jurisdiction at the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The appellant argued that the ICC lacks jurisdiction under Section 9 of the POSH Act, and the ICC constituted by his department can hear the case. The CAT and the Delhi High Court dismissed the challenge. He appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that “workplace” under Section 2(o) has a wide meaning, including any place visited by an employee, whether out of or during the course of employment. Noting that the definition does not require the respondent to be an employee of the same workplace as the aggrieved, the Court ruled that the ICC of the aggrieved’s workplace has the power to conduct a fact-finding inquiry under the POSH Act.
Dr Sohail Malik v Union of India
12 December 2025
Citations: 2025 INSC 1415 | 2025 SCO.LR 12(3)[14]
Case Comment
25. The thrust of the challenge as presented by the Appellant before the CAT and the High Court, in short, was that since the Department of Revenue was the controlling authority of the Appellant, the ICC constituted under the Department of Food and Public Distribution did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the aggrieved woman under Section 9 of the POSH Act. As such, the Appellant contended that it was only the ICC constituted under his own Department which can institute ICC proceedings against him. To buttress this argument, much emphasis was laid by the Appellant on Section 11 of the POSH Act. The Appellant urged that use of the words ‘where the respondent is an employee’ in Section 11 implies that the inquiry into a complaint for sexual harassment must be done by the ICC constituted at the workplace where the Appellant is employed. Consequently, he argued that the workplace of the aggrieved woman and the ‘respondent’ alleged of the act of sexual harassment have to be the same, for the POSH Act to apply. Held,
72. In the present case, considering the wide definition of the word ‘workplace’ under the POSH Act, particularly as contained in Section 2(o)(v), if we were to accept the contentions of the appellant, the said interpretation would run contrary to the object of the POSH Act and its intent as a social welfare legislation. In the interest of clarity and easy comprehension, the following are our conclusions in terms of the above discussion:
- The phrase ‘where the respondent is an employee’ as contained in Section 11 of the POSH Act, cannot be interpreted to mean that ICC proceedings against a ‘respondent’ may only be instituted before the ICC constituted at the workplace of the ‘respondent’;
- Such a restrictive interpretation of the POSH Act will run contrary to the scheme of the Act, specifically in light of the all-encompassing and wide definition which has been given to the term ‘workplace’ in Section 2(o) of the POSH Act, particularly in light of Section 2(o)(v) which expands the scope of ‘workplace’ to include any place visited by the employee ‘arising out of or during the course of employment’;
- Under Section 13 of the POSH Act, the recommendations and report of the ICC are to be sent to the ‘employer’ which shall then take a decision with respect to initiation of disciplinary action. In light of the OM dated 16.07.2025, the ICC has a dual-role – to conduct the preliminary / factfinding inquiry under the POSH Act and to act as the inquiry authority in the formal disciplinary proceedings under the CCS CCA Rules, 1965 as discussed, since nothing prevents the ICC constituted at the Department of the aggrieved woman from conducting the preliminary / fact-finding inquiry and upon receiving the report of the said ICC, if the employer initiates disciplinary proceedings, the ICC constituted at the Department of the ‘respondent’ shall act as the inquiry authority in the disciplinary proceedings.
- In case the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace is conducting a fact-finding inquiry under the POSH Act, the employer of the ‘respondent’, even if it is a different department, must abide its duties under Section 19(f) of the POSH Act to swiftly cooperate and make available information upon a request by the ICC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace.
73. In light of the above conclusions and the answers to the issues as framed, the present appeal is dismissed. The report of the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace shall be transmitted to the Department of the appellant forthwith, which shall take further action as necessary under the POSH Act following the procedure as prescribed in the relevant service rules
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://legal.relegal.in/subscribe-newsletter/
#legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #POSH #Jurisdiction #ICC #workplace #sexualharassment
Keywords/phrases: Section 9 of the POSH Act 2013–Internal Complaints Committee–Jurisdiction of ICC–Respondent not from the same department–ICC lacks jurisdiction–challenge preferred at CAT–Dismissed–Upheld by High Court–Wide meaning of workplace under Section 2(o)–Respondent not required to be employee of the same workplace as aggrieved–Appeal dismissed.
Read the Judgement here.