POSH Act Penalises Woman For Filing False Complaint But Not Someone Who 'Instigates' Her To Lodge It: Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court at Goa on Monday (April 20) held that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) provides for punishment against the complainant woman or anyone who lodged the complaint on her behalf— if the complaint is 'false and malicious'.

However, the Act does not provide for any punishment for someone who 'instigates' such woman to file a false complaint. 

Single-judge Justice Dr Neela Gokhale passed the order while disposing of a plea filed by one Shrinivas Shinde, who challenged the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) which closed a sexual harassment complaint lodged against him by a female colleague. The complaint was closed with the finding that the said female colleague was 'instigated' to lodged a false complaint against Shinde by some 'unknown person'.

Shinde, who worked as a low division clerk with the Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, highlighted the fact that the complainant female colleague had clearly told the ICC that it was the institute's Principle - Dattaprasad Palni, who forced her to sign on a complaint that he drafted against the petitioner. The woman had told the ICC that Palni had threatened her of future harassment, if she did not sign the complaint against Shinde. 

Shinde challenged the ICC order before an Industrial Court with the prayer to initiate proceedings against Palni for forcing the female colleague to file a false complaint against him.

However, Justice Gokhale while referring to various relevant provisions of the POSH Act, clarified that the statute only provided penal action against a woman or anyone acting on her behalf, when they file a false and malicious complaint. 

"The extent of penalty powers of the ICC under Section 14 of the Act are limited to making a recommendation to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be, to take action against the woman or the person who has made the complaint under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of Section 9, as the case may be. The statute does not provide for action/punishment, for false or malicious complaint or giving false evidence before the ICC, against a person who may have instigated a woman or a person making the complaint. The action or punishment contemplated under Section 14 of the Act is limited to the woman or person making the complaint," Justice Gokhale held. 

In this view of the matter, the judge explained that since the female colleague in the instant case has filed a complaint against Shinde, he can seek penal action against her and not against the 'instigator' (as per the woman) i.e. Palni.

"In the present case, it is the female colleague who is the author of the complaint. It may be that she was threatened with dire consequences of future harassment that propelled her to make the false complaint against the Petitioner. The Petitioner may be within his rights in seeking action against her. However, his prayer to direct disciplinary action against Palni, under the POSH Act is misplaced and hence, rejected," Justice Gokhale held. 

The judge, however, criticised the ICC for closing the complaint while recording the instigator to be an 'unknown source' instead of naming Palni.

"Having closed the complaint on the basis of the retraction letter sent by the Respondent No  4-Complainant, the ICC cannot selectively omit to name the source of instigation, when he is named in the same retraction letter," it said.

Therefore, Justice Gokhale, allowed Shinde's plea to the extend of including Palni's name in the ICC report.

Justice Gokhale ordered, "It is directed that the conclusion of the ICC will read as 'The Respondent No. 3 (Palni) instigated the Respondent No. 4 (female colleague) to file a false sexual harassment case against the Petitioner. The Petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against Palni, before an appropriate forum, if permissible in law. If such proceedings are initiated against him, it is needless to say that he shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard to defend himself."

With these observations, the judge disposed of the plea. 

Appearance:

Advocate Shivraj Gaonkar appeared for the Petitioner.

Additional Government Advocate Rishikesh Gawas represented the Authorities.

Case Title: Shrinivas Shinde vs Directorate of Skill Development & Entrepreneurship (Writ Petition 15 of 2026)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 202

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment