Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition By Akasa Air Pilot Challenging ICC Report Over Denial Of Hearing In POSH Case

The Bombay High Court held that the mere absence of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in proceedings under the POSH Act does not automatically vitiate the inquiry, particularly where the foundational facts are admitted and no prejudice is demonstrated. The Court observed that proceedings before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) are fact-finding in nature and are not bound by strict evidentiary rules.Justice N.J. Jamadar was hearing a writ petition filed by a pilot employed as Captain with Akasa Air, challenging the final report of the ICC, which had recommended certain corrective actions for the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the ICC's findings were vitiated due to the denial of cross-examination of witnesses and lack of personal hearing, and thus sought the quashing of the report. The respondent airline opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act.The Court observed that ordinarily, the rule of existence of a statutory remedy is required to be adhered to, and in cases where a statutory appeal is provided, the writ court would be slow in exercising the plenary jurisdiction, side-stepping the appellate forum.The Court noted that the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11 provides that the parties shall be given an opportunity of being heard and a copy of the finding shall be made available to both parties, enabling them to make representation. However, the Court clarified that the Complaints Committee is not tethered by the strict rules of procedure and evidence. It observed:“It is not obligatory that, in every case, the aggrieved person must be provided oral hearing. In the case at hand, there is material to indicate that the petitioner was served with the preliminary findings and given an opportunity to make representation against those preliminary findings.”The Court further observed that where the core facts are not disputed, the absence of cross-examination does not necessarily amount to prejudice warranting intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. It held that the basic facts in the case at hand were not disputed and the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses did not prejudice the petitioner to warrant jettisoning away of the inquiry overboard, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.“Where there was no contest on the basic facts, absence of formal opportunity of cross-examination per se may not vitiate the decision,” the Court observed.Hence, the Court held that the facts of the case are not such as would warrant the exercise of writ jurisdiction, despite the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal.Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, while clarifying that if the petitioner chooses to file an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act within four weeks, the period spent in pursuing the writ petition may be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation. Case Title: ABC v. Internal Complaints Committee, Akasa Air & Ors., [WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 15574 OF 2025]Click Here To Read/Download Order

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition By Akasa Air Pilot Challenging ICC Report Over Denial Of Hearing In POSH Case

Saksham Vaishya

Tags