ICC Under POSH Act Can Exercise Jurisdiction Over Employee of Different Department: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has authoritatively clarified the scope of jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Prevention Prohibition and Redressal Act, 2013. The Court has held that the Internal Complaints Committee constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman is competent to entertain and inquire into a complaint even when the respondent is employed in a different department or workplace.

The ruling settles an important question under the POSH Act concerning inter departmental sexual harassment complaints within government service and reinforces the objective of the statute as a social welfare legislation intended to provide effective and accessible redressal to aggrieved women.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi while dismissing an appeal filed by Dr Sohail Malik, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, against a judgment of the Delhi High Court dated June 30, 2023. The High Court had upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi dated June 23, 2023, which had declined to interfere with a notice issued to the appellant by an Internal Complaints Committee.

The complaint was filed by an Indian Administrative Service officer who was, at the relevant time, posted as Joint Secretary. She alleged that on May 15, 2023, she was sexually harassed at her workplace at Krishi Bhawan New Delhi by the appellant, who was then serving as Officer on Special Duty Investigation with the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The appellant and the complainant were serving in different departments under the Government of India.

Before the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequently before the High Court and the Supreme Court, the appellant raised a jurisdictional objection. He contended that the Internal Complaints Committee constituted in the department of the complainant could not entertain a complaint against him as he was not an employee of that department. According to the appellant, the complaint ought to have been filed before the Internal Complaints Committee of his own department.

Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court examined the scheme of the POSH Act, particularly Sections 9, 11, 13 and 19. The Court held that under Section 9, any aggrieved woman may make a complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee constituted at her workplace. Once such a complaint is made, any person against whom the complaint is filed becomes a respondent for the purposes of the Act.

The Court clarified that Section 11 of the POSH Act does not mandate that the respondent must be an employee of the same workplace where the Internal Complaints Committee is constituted. The phrase where the respondent is an employee, as used in Section 11, only governs the manner in which the inquiry and subsequent disciplinary action are to be conducted. It does not restrict the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee to cases where both parties belong to the same workplace.

The bench held that if the respondent is an employee, the applicable service rules will govern the disciplinary proceedings. In the absence of service rules, the inquiry is to be conducted in the manner prescribed under the Act. However, the existence of service rules or the place of employment of the respondent does not determine which Internal Complaints Committee has jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint.

The Court also referred to Section 13 of the POSH Act, which requires the Internal Complaints Committee to forward its inquiry report and recommendations to the employer. The employer is then required to act upon the recommendations in accordance with law. The Supreme Court noted that this statutory mechanism clearly contemplates cooperation between different departments or employers where required.

Placing reliance on an Office Memorandum dated July 16, 2025, the Court observed that in government service, the Internal Complaints Committee performs a dual role. It conducts the preliminary or fact finding inquiry under the POSH Act and may also act as the inquiry authority in formal disciplinary proceedings under the Central Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1965. The Court clarified that while the Internal Complaints Committee of the aggrieved woman’s department may conduct the fact finding inquiry, the Internal Complaints Committee of the respondent’s department can act as the inquiry authority for disciplinary proceedings if initiated.

The bench further emphasised the statutory duties of the employer under Section 19 of the POSH Act. Under Section 19(f), the employer of the respondent, even if it is a different department, is duty bound to cooperate with the Internal Complaints Committee and provide all relevant information sought during the inquiry. Under Section 19(h), the employer is also required to facilitate the initiation of criminal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code if the aggrieved woman so desires.

Significantly, the Supreme Court held that even where the respondent is not an employee anywhere, criminal proceedings may still be initiated, and the employer must facilitate such initiation. The Court clarified that the availability of remedies under the POSH Act does not exclude or override the initiation of criminal proceedings.

Reiterating settled principles of statutory interpretation, the Court observed that the intention of the legislature must be gathered primarily from the language used in the statute. Where ambiguity exists, the interpretation must advance the object and purpose of the legislation. The Court cautioned against reading isolated words or phrases out of context and emphasised that statutory provisions must be construed as a whole.

Applying these principles, the bench held that a restrictive interpretation of the word workplace or respondent would defeat the very object of the POSH Act. Given the wide definition of workplace under Section 2(o) of the Act, particularly clause (v), accepting the appellant’s argument would undermine the protective framework intended by Parliament.

The Supreme Court ultimately directed that the report of the Internal Complaints Committee constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman be transmitted forthwith to the department of the appellant. The appellant’s department was directed to take further action in accordance with the POSH Act and the applicable service rules.

Case Title: Dr Sohail Malik v Union of India and Another

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi

Date of Judgment: 2025