Sexual Harassment Complaint Can Be Inquired by ICC at Woman’s Workplace Even if Accused Works Elsewhere: Supreme Court Settles Jurisdiction Under POSH Act

“Where the Respondent is an Employee’ in Section 11 of POSH Act is a Procedural Clause, Not a Jurisdictional Mandate,” In a significant clarification on the functioning of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the Supreme Court of India on December 10, 2025, ruled that a complaint of sexual harassment filed by a woman employee can be validly inquired into by the ICC of her own department, even if the alleged respondent is employed in another government department.

The judgment came in the case of Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., where a male IRS officer had challenged the jurisdiction of the ICC constituted at the department of the complainant—a senior IAS officer—contending that only the ICC in his own department (Department of Revenue) had the jurisdiction to inquire into such a complaint. The Supreme Court dismissed this challenge, laying down a crucial precedent for inter-departmental complaints in the public sector.

The bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi rejected the plea, holding that “the phrase ‘where the respondent is an employee’ under Section 11 of the POSH Act must be construed as a procedural directive and not a jurisdictional restriction.”

Supreme Court dismantles narrow reading of ICC jurisdiction under POSH Act

At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the POSH Act, which uses the phrase “where the respondent is an employee”. The appellant argued that this meant that only the ICC of the accused’s department could conduct the inquiry. The Court decisively disagreed.

"The word 'where' in Section 11 is used as a conditional clause—similar to ‘if’—and not as a reference to any geographical or organisational location," the Court explained. It added that reading it otherwise would create procedural obstacles for aggrieved women, forcing them to approach a different office to lodge a complaint against someone from another department.

"Such a construction is antithetical to the spirit, scheme and purpose of the POSH Act, which is a social welfare legislation," the Court held, reminding that the objective of the Act is to ensure safe and accessible redressal mechanisms for women, not to trap them in procedural formalities.

“Workplace” includes interdepartmental interactions; POSH not confined to physical office boundaries

In response to the appellant’s contention that he and the complainant did not share the same workplace, the Court referred to the broad definition of "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act. The law includes any place visited by the employee during the course of employment, which, in this case, included Krishi Bhawan, where the alleged incident took place.

Further, the Court highlighted that the Act does not require that the complainant and the accused be from the same department or organisation. “The POSH Act visualizes a workplace as a functional space where interactions of employment occur—not necessarily confined to administrative hierarchies or payrolls,” the Court observed.

In this case, the complainant, a Joint Secretary in the Department of Food and Public Distribution, filed the complaint regarding an alleged incident during a professional meeting with the appellant at Krishi Bhawan. The Internal Complaints Committee of her department took cognizance, conducted an inquiry, and submitted its report. The appellant challenged this on the ground that he was employed with the Department of Revenue and hence, only their ICC could inquire.

The Supreme Court termed this contention “hyper-technical and devoid of merit.”

Respondent’s service rules govern disciplinary action, but ICC of complainant’s department can conduct inquiry

The Court made a clear distinction between two stages of the process under the POSH Act and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules:

First, it held that the ICC at the aggrieved woman’s workplace is fully competent to conduct the initial fact-finding inquiry under the POSH Act. Second, if action is to be taken based on the findings, then the disciplinary authority in the respondent’s own department can initiate proceedings as per the service rules.

"The phrase 'where the respondent is an employee' is meant to indicate that once the complaint is against an employee, the applicable service rules would be triggered—not that the inquiry must be conducted only by that employee’s department," the Court clarified.

To buttress this, the Court also cited the DoPT’s Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2015, which recognises a two-stage process: a POSH-compliant inquiry by the ICC, followed by formal proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 if necessary.

“Integrated service rules, not isolated ICCs”: Supreme Court insists on cooperative institutional response

The Court also took note of the concern that a respondent may be prejudiced if an ICC outside his department conducts the inquiry. This concern, the bench held, is addressed by the statutory obligation under Section 19(f) of the POSH Act, which requires every employer to assist the ICC in the inquiry, including providing documents, attendance records, and other relevant materials.

In this case, the Court recorded that the respondent’s own employer—the Department of Revenue—had cooperated with the ICC and provided necessary documentation. The Court concluded that “no prejudice was caused” to the appellant during the inquiry.

Denial of ICC’s jurisdiction would defeat the legislative purpose of the POSH Act

In a strong affirmation of the POSH Act’s social purpose, the Court warned against interpreting procedural phrases in a manner that would render the redressal mechanism ineffective. The Court cited earlier rulings such as Eera v. State (NCT of Delhi) and RBI v. Peerless to underline the importance of purposive interpretation in social legislation.

"To force an aggrieved woman to seek redress before the ICC of the accused person’s department would be a travesty of the statutory protection, likely to result in delay, intimidation, or abandonment of complaint," the Court observed.

Report valid, ICC competent, and further action lies with respondent’s employer

Concluding the matter, the Court directed that the sealed report of the ICC be forwarded to the Department of Revenue, where the respondent is employed, for further necessary action under the applicable service rules.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court reaffirmed that the ICC at the aggrieved woman’s department was fully competent to conduct the inquiry and that there was no procedural or legal irregularity in the process.

Date of Decision: December 10, 2025