Statutory Confidentiality Under POSH Act Doesn't Bar Supply Of Documents To Accused Employee Facing Disciplinary Action: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that statutory confidentiality provisions under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) cannot be invoked to deny an accused employee access to relevant documents in disciplinary proceedings.Justice N. Nagareesh, delivered the judgment. The present petition was filed seeking to quash the...
The Kerala High Court has held that statutory confidentiality provisions under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) cannot be invoked to deny an accused employee access to relevant documents in disciplinary proceedings.
Justice N. Nagareesh, delivered the judgment.
The present petition was filed seeking to quash the order transferring the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram Region to Karnataka Region and subsequently to Andhra Pradesh Region.
It was also submitted that sexual harassment allegations were made against the petitioner and the transfer order was issued pursuant to this. The petitioner contended that he was denied copies of witness statements and other materials relied upon by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in the sexual harassment allegation. The employer justified the denial by invoking Section 16 of the POSH Act, which restricts publication of inquiry-related information.
The Court examined whether such confidentiality extends to withholding documents from the accused employee himself during disciplinary proceedings.
The Court noted that Section 16 only prohibits publication , communication and making the contents known to the public, press and media in any manner and it shall not disentitle the petitioner to get copies of relevant materials.
“ Providing copies of relevant documents to the petitioner will not amount to publication / communication / making known to the public, press or media the contents thereof. The petitioner therefore is entitled to receive copies of all relevant materials being relied on by the respondents to sustain the charges against the petitioner.” Court noted.
Even though the Court directed the employer to provide the relevant documents to the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice, it declined to interfere with the transfer of the petitioner.
The Court noted that the transfer order was part of a general administrative exercise affecting multiple employees and not punitive.
“ In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to conclude that the petitioner is being transferred to Andhra Pradesh by way of victimisation. There are no materials to come to a conclusion that the petitioner has been picked up and chosen for hostile discrimination. The challenge against Ext.P15(transfer order) is therefore only to be rejected.” Court noted.
The court thus dismissed the writ petitions.
Case Title: Linson K.Thomas v Union of India and Ors. and connected case
Case No: WP(C) 44193/ 2025 and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
Counsel for Petitioner: D. Kishore, Meera Gopinath, Anant Kishore
Counsel for Respondents: Karthik S. Acharya, Jose Kuriakose (Vilangattil), M Rajendran Nair (Thonnalloor), K. Jaju Babu (Sr.), Renjith R. Nair, Sanoj R. Nair, Sreejith R. Nair