POSH Act Interpretation: Supreme Court Rejects Jurisdictional Limits for ICCs

Dr. Sohail Malik Vs Union of India & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)

Protection Over Procedure: SC Prioritises Women’s Workplace Safety in ICC Jurisdiction- No Departmental Borders in POSH – ICC at Aggrieved Woman’s Workplace Can Inquire Against Respondent From Any Department

Background

• Appellant: Sohail Malik, IRS officer posted as OSD (Investigation), CBDT.
• Aggrieved woman: IAS Joint Secretary, Dept. of Food & Public Distribution (DFPD).
• Alleged incident of sexual harassment occurred on 05.2023 at Krishi Bhawan.
• FIR lodged; criminal case pending separately (chargesheet filed).
• Complaint under POSH Act filed before the ICC constituted at DFPD, i.e., the woman’s workplace.
• ICC issued hearing notice; appellant challenged jurisdiction before CAT → dismissed; High Court upheld dismissal.

Appellant’s Core Argument

• ICC of his own department (CBDT/Dept. of Revenue) alone had jurisdiction.
• Relied heavily on the phrase “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 of the POSH Act.
• Claimed that disciplinary authority lies only with his employer; hence inquiry must also be by his department’s ICC.
• Argued that woman should proceed only under IPC (Section 19(h) POSH) if respondent is from another department.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the POSH Act

• POSH Act is a social welfare legislation—must be interpreted purposively to protect women & ensure accessible remedies.
• Definitions of respondent, employee, workplace are deliberately broad, covering inter-departmental situations.
• Section 11(1)’s word “where” = conditional conjunction (meaning “if/in case”), not a territorial / jurisdictional limitation.
• Section 11 only prescribes which service rules apply, not which ICC has authority.
• POSH Act nowhere requires that both parties must work in the same office/department.

Why ICC at Woman’s Workplace Has Jurisdiction

• Woman must have a safe and accessible mechanism where she works.
• Requiring her to approach ICC of the accused’s department creates practical & psychological barriers.
• Section 2(o)(v) expands “workplace” to any place visited in the course of employment, reinforcing broad jurisdiction.
• ICC at woman’s workplace conducts the fact-finding inquiry; the respondent’s employer then acts on recommendations under Section 13.
• Inquiry & disciplinary action are distinct stages:
  • ICC → fact-finding under POSH.
  • Employer of respondent → disciplinary proceedings under CCS(CCA) Rules.
• No prejudice shown to appellant by inquiry being conducted at DFPD.

Key Legal Reinforcements

• Vishaka guidelines, CEDAW principles & Medha Kotwal Lele recognized ICC as an inquiry authority even before POSH Act.
• Government OM dated 16.07.2015 clarifies dual role of ICC (fact-finding + inquiry under CCS rules).
• POSH Act does not restrict the ICC’s jurisdiction to employer-employee departmental boundaries.

Final Decision

• Appeal dismissed.
• ICC at the aggrieved woman’s workplace rightly exercised jurisdiction.
• CAT & Delhi High Court decisions affirmed.
• Inquiry report (kept in sealed cover earlier) may now be acted upon per law.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER