POSH Act | Woman Can Approach ICC Of Her Department Against Harassment By Employee Of Another Workplace: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 10) held that when a woman is subjected to sexual harassment at the workplace by a person who is not part of her own organisation, she is entitled to file her complaint before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of her own workplace, and not before the ICC of the third party's establishment.

“if the aggrieved woman had to approach the ICC constituted at the workplace of the 'respondent' for every third-party incident, it would fall short of the aforesaid object.”, observed a bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while dismissing an appeal filed by an IRS officer accused of sexually harassing the IAS respondent at her workplace.

The case stemmed from an incident on May 15, 2023, where an IAS officer (the aggrieved woman) alleged that Appellant sexually harassed her at her workplace in Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. An FIR was registered, and she also filed a complaint under the POSH Act before the ICC in her department (Food and Public Distribution).

Appellant challenged the ICC's jurisdiction before the Central Administrative Tribunal and later the Delhi High Court, arguing that as an employee of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Department of Revenue), only an ICC constituted there could inquire into the complaint. Both tribunals dismissed his challenge, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Affirming the impugned orders, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari rejected the narrow interpretation of the word 'workplace', holding that “a narrow interpretation of provisions of the POSH Act, in order to hold that only the ICC of the workplace of the 'respondent' has jurisdiction to inquire into complaints against him, irrespective of where the workplace of the aggrieved woman is or where the alleged act of sexual harassment took place, would undermine the POSH Act's remedial social welfare intent since it would create significant practical hurdles for the aggrieved woman.”

Respondent need not be employee of woman's workplace

The Court noted that the Act does not provide that the 'respondent' must necessarily be an employee of the same workplace where the aggrieved woman works. The expansive definitions of these words enable the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman's workplace to exercise jurisdiction over an employee of a different workplace.

"Any person against whom a complaint is filed by the aggrieved woman before the ICC constituted at her workplace under Section 9, is a 'respondent' under the POSH Act and as per the scheme of Section 11(1), if the 'respondent' is an 'employee', his service rules shall apply and in the absence of service rules, inquiry shall be conducted as prescribed, but the 'respondent' need not necessarily be an employee of the same 'workplace'."

The following conclusions were made:

"(i) The phrase 'where the respondent is an employee' as contained in Section 11 of the POSH Act, cannot be interpreted to mean that ICC proceedings against a 'respondent' may only be instituted before the ICC constituted at the workplace of the 'respondent';

(ii) Such a restrictive interpretation of the POSH Act will run contrary to the scheme of the Act, specifically in light of the all-encompassing and wide definition which has been given to the term 'workplace' in Section 2(o) of the POSH Act, particularly in light of Section 2(o)(v) which expands the scope of 'workplace' to include any place visited by the employee 'arising out of or during the course of employment';

(iii) Under Section 13 of the POSH Act, the 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 dated 16.07.2025, the ICC has a dual-role – to conduct the preliminary / factfinding inquiry under the POSH Act and to act as the inquiry authority in the formal disciplinary proceedings under the CCS CCA Rules, 1965 as discussed, 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 said 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.

(iv) 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 under Section 19(f) of the POSH Act to swiftly cooperate and make available information upon a request by the ICC of the aggrieved woman's workplace."

Cause Title: DR. SOHAIL MALIK VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1191

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vipin Sanghi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Piyush Sharma, AOR Mr. Anuj Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Dikshit, Adv. Mr. Shivesh Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Hritik Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Noor Rampal, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. Shagun Ruhil, Adv. Mr. Karan Chopra, Adv.