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.
Dr Sohail Malik v. Union of India — (2025) INSC 1415Core Argument
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. The definitions of 'workplace' are neutral and broad, and a two-stage procedure respects both the complainant's access to justice and the respondent's service rules.
Key Precedents
- Davies Jenkins & Co. Ltd. v. Davies (1968) AC 1097 — House of Lords decision holding that the word 'where' in statutes is often used as a conditional conjunction meaning 'if' or 'whenever', not as a reference to a physical place.
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 — The foundational case establishing the Vishaka Guidelines, which the POSH Act was enacted to codify; emphasises that the objective is to provide a safe workplace free from sexual harassment.
Premium Argument
Subscribe to access the full argument framework with precedent mapping and submission structure.
Subscribe to AccessAlready a subscriber? Sign inBENCH QUESTION
What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?
OPPOSITION COUNTER
The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...
Unlock the Argument Simulator
4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.
Available on Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans only.
Upgrade to Annual PlanDisclaimer: This argument framework is published by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Adapt all submissions to the specific facts of your matter. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in