LexDR. SOHAIL MALIK versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 505 : 2025 INSC 1415 Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2024) 10 December 2025 [J.K. Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Internal Complaints Committee-ICC constituted in one department of the Central Government has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment under the POSH Act against an employee of a different department of the Central Government; whether the use of the words ‘where the respondent is an employee’ as contained in s.11 of the POSH Act would mandate that ICC proceedings must be instituted and carried out at the workplace of the ‘respondent’ instead of the workplace of the aggrieved woman where incident occurred and complaint was made; and if not, under the scheme of s.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; and whether the proceedings of the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman, have caused any prejudice to the appellant, warranting interference by this Court. Headnotes† Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – ss.2(o), 2(o)(v), 9, 11 – Complaint of sexual harassment – Jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committee-ICC – ICC constituted in one Government Department, if can entertain a complaint under the Act against the appellant working at a different Government Department at the relevant time – IAS officer alleged that the appellant IRS officer, sexually harassed her at her workplace- Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – FIR by the aggrieved woman against the appellant – Subsequently, complaint under the POSH Act presented before the ICC constituted u/s.9 at the aggrieved woman’s department/workplace-Department of Food and Public Distribution – Pursuant thereto ICC issued meeting * Author 506 [2025] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports notice/order to the appellant – Appellant filed application before the tribunal challenging jurisdiction of ICC, however the same was dismissed – High Court upheld the said order – Correctness: Held: Aggrieved woman can approach ICC of her own department against harassment by an employee of another workplace – Phrase ‘where the respondent is an employee’ in s.11, cannot be interpreted to mean that ICC proceedings against ‘respondent’ may only be instituted before the ICC constituted at the workplace of the ‘respondent’ – Such restrictive interpretation of the POSH Act contrary to the scheme and object of the Act and its intent as a social welfare legislation, specifically in light of the wide definition of the term ‘workplace’ in s.2(o)(v) which include any place visited by the employee ‘arising out of or during the course of employment’ – U/s.13, 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 dt 6.07.2025, ICC has a dual-role-to conduct the preliminary/fact-finding inquiry under POSH Act and to act as the inquiry authority in the formal disciplinary proceedings under the CCS CCA Rules, 1965, 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 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 u/s.19(f) to swiftly cooperate and make available information upon a request by the ICC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace, which has duly been complied with – ‘Respondent’ not shown that any prejudice has been caused to him due to the proceedings being carried out by the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman. [Para 72] Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – s.11 – Inquiry into the complaint – Textual interpretation of s.11 – Meaning of the word ‘where’ as used therein: [2025] 12 S.C.R. 507 Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr. Held: s.11(1) envisages three distinc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.