Dr Sohail Malik v. Union of India
(2025) INSC 1415
Key Issue / Question of Law
Whether the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted in one department of the Central Government has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 against an employee of a different department; and whether the phrase 'where the respondent is an employee' in Section 11 mandates that ICC proceedings must be instituted at the respondent's workplace.
Ratio Decidendi
The word 'where' in Section 11(1) of the POSH Act is a conditional conjunction meaning 'if' or 'whenever', not a reference to a physical place. It introduces a contingency (respondent being an employee) that triggers the ICC to apply service rules, not a jurisdictional restraint limiting which ICC may hear a complaint. The definitions of 'employee' and 'workplace' under the POSH Act are neutral and do not require the respondent to be an employee of the same workplace as the aggrieved woman. The ICC at the aggrieved woman's workplace has jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary fact-finding inquiry; its report and recommendations are sent to the respondent's employer under Section 13, who then acts upon them. A two-stage procedure is permissible: (1) fact-finding by ICC at aggrieved woman's workplace, (2) formal disciplinary inquiry by ICC at respondent's workplace after chargesheet issuance.
Holding / Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the jurisdiction of the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman's workplace (Department of Food and Public Distribution). The Court held that Section 11 does not restrict jurisdiction to the respondent's workplace. The ICC at the aggrieved woman's workplace may conduct a preliminary fact-finding inquiry, and its report shall be sent to the respondent's employer (Department of Revenue) for action under Section 13. The Court clarified that no prejudice was caused to the appellant, and he may raise all contentions in future disciplinary proceedings except jurisdiction.
Background & Facts
The appellant, a 2010 batch Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer, was posted as OSD, Investigation, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi. The aggrieved woman, a 2004 batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, was posted as Joint Secretary in the Department of Food and Public Distribution. On 15 May 2023, she alleged that the appellant sexually harassed her at her workplace at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. She filed a complaint under the POSH Act before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted in her own department (Department of Food and Public Distribution). The appellant challenged the ICC's jurisdiction, arguing that his controlling authority was the Department of Revenue, and therefore only an ICC in that department could entertain the complaint. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his challenge, as did the Delhi High Court. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Statutes Involved
- Section 11, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — Provides for the inquiry procedure by the Internal Complaints Committee, specifying when the respondent is an employee, a domestic worker, or otherwise
- Section 2(o), Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — Defines 'workplace' broadly to include any place visited by an employee during the course of employment
- Section 2(f), Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — Defines 'employee' broadly including permanent, temporary, contractual, and voluntary workers
- Section 13, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — Requires the ICC to submit its inquiry report and recommendations to the employer, who must act within 60 days
- Section 19(f), Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 — Imposes a statutory duty on employers to cooperate with the ICC and provide assistance
- Articles 14, 15 and 21, Constitution of India — Guarantee equality, prohibit discrimination, and protect right to life and dignity, forming the constitutional foundation for the POSH Act
Full Analysis
Premium Content
Subscribe to access the full analysis, practical implications, and related case mapping.
Subscribe — ₹99/monthAlready a subscriber? Sign inAdvocate's Note — Agarawal Associates
Professional insight for advocates on how to deploy this judgment in practice...
Subscribe to access the Advocate's Note.
Key Conditional Rule / Important Caveat
This judgment applies ONLY where the alleged sexual harassment occurred at the workplace of the aggrieved woman, and that workplace falls within the broad definition of 'workplace' under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act (including any place visited by an employee during the course of employment). The ICC at that workplace has jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary fact-finding inquiry. If the alleged harassment occurred at a place that is not the workplace of the aggrieved woman (e.g., a private residence or a public place unrelated to employment), or if the aggrieved woman was not an employee of that workplace, then this judgment's holding on cross-departmental ICC jurisdiction may not apply, and the proper forum may be the Local Committee under Section 6 of the POSH Act.
Cases Cited
- Davies Jenkins & Co. Ltd. v. Davies (1968) AC 1097 — House of Lords decision cited to interpret the grammatical function of the word 'where' as a conditional conjunction meaning 'if' or 'whenever', not a reference to a physical place.
Courtroom Arguments
For Petitioner
Section 11 Requires Respondent's Workplace ICC — (2025) INSC 1415
The phrase 'where the respondent is an employee' in Section 11(1) of the POSH Act mandates that the ICC of the respondent's workplace has exclusive jurisdiction.
For Respondent
ICC at Aggrieved Woman's Workplace Has Jurisdiction — (2025) INSC 1415
The word 'where' in Section 11 of the POSH Act means 'if', not 'at the place where'. The ICC at the workplace where the harassment occurred has jurisdiction.
Found this useful? Share it with your colleagues.
One tap sends the case name, citation, key issue and link.
Disclaimer: This summary is prepared by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For legal matters, consult a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in