POSH Complaints Can't Be Probed By Parallel Inquiry Authority Outside ICC/LCC Mechanism: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the complaints under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013, cannot be investigated or adjudicated by any parallel authority outside the framework of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) or Local Complaints Committee (LCC). The bench of Justice Ashish Shroti emphasized that allowing such a parallel authority would undermine the objective of the POSH Act.The bench stated;"If an employer is allowed to constitute a parallel enquiry authority, other than ICC or LCC, to enquire into the allegations of sexual harassment by a woman at workplace, the same would frustrate the object of the POSH Act inasmuch as the confidentiality which is to be maintained in such cases would be breached and there are chances of undue influence and pressure on the enquiring authority".The bench also considered the interplay between the POSH Act and the provision of the MP Civil Services CAA Rules of 1996, observing that,"Rule 14(2)...makes it evident that the disciplinary authority is competent to appoint an authority to inquire into the allegations of misconduct. However, when such allegations constitute sexual harassment within the meaning of Rule 22(3) of M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, the ICC/LCC constituted under the POSH Act is deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by disciplinary authority for purposes of CCA Rules".BackgroundThe petitioner, an Assitant Professor at Raja Mansingh Tomar University, was accused of sexual harassment by some students on March 26, 2025. The University, subsequently, constituted a Students' Grievance Redressal Committee (SGRC) of five members headed by the Principal of Madhav College of Gwalior under University Grants Commission Regulations of 2023 (UGC Regulations).The incident was also reported to the Police, which subsequently lodged an FIR for assaulting a woman with the intention to outrage her modesty (Section 74), sexual harassment (Section 75), and acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman (Section 79), and criminal intimidation (Section 351).The SRGC conducted an inquiry and recorded statements, but the petitioner did not participate in the inquiry. Per the committee's report, since the complainant was unable to support their allegations through credible evidence and since the petitioner did not participate despite multiple reminders, no further action was required and the police officials were investigating the matter.Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Sanskriti Sanchalnalaya (Directorate of Culture), Bhopal. Non-compliance with said order led to suspension, followed by issuance of a chargesheet. A retired Principal District Judge was appointed as the Inquiry Officer by the Vice-Chancellor, who submitted the report to the Executive Council. The petitioner's explanation was rejected, and a termination order was issued, prompting the filing of the present petition.The counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry was illegal and without jurisdiction, as under Rule 14 MP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, the ICC is the sole authority for inquiries into sexual harassment. The counsel further argued that the inquiry that was conducted de hors the provision of the POSH Act, 2013, and therefore, termination is unsustainable.The counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, citing the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal to the Governor within 30 days. The counsel further argued that the disciplinary authority can appoint an independent Inquiry Officer under CAA Rules to inquire into misconduct, including sexual harassment. Court's observationsThe court first traced the evolution of sexual harassment law, beginning with Vishaka & ors. v. State of Rajasthan, where the Apex Court first recognised the need for a robust mechanism and thus laid down guidelines for prevention and redressal of sexual harassment at the workplace, effectively mandating the creation of a complaint mechanism and a committee within every organisation. The Parliament, subsequently, enacted the POSH Act, which codified procedures for prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment in workplaces through ICC/LCCs. Section 4 of the Act mandates that every employer constitute an ICC, while Section 5 provides for an LCC in workplaces where an ICC is not available. The Act clearly emphasises that these committees are an exclusive authority for enquiry into complaints of sexual harassment. "The language of Section 4 & 5 gives a mandate when it uses the word “shall” for enquiry into the complaint", the court noted. The court further examined Sections 10 and 11 of the POSH Act, observing that Section 10 allowed for conciliation efforts while Section 11 mandates the institution of a formal inquiry in cases where the conciliation has failed. "Pertinently, the ICC/LCC is empowered to exercise powers vested in a civil court under CPC in respect of matters provides in the...

POSH Complaints Can't Be Probed By Parallel Inquiry Authority Outside ICC/LCC Mechanism: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

POSH Complaints Can't Be Probed By Parallel Inquiry Authority Outside ICC/LCC Mechanism: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers