Dr Malik, the alleged harassment occurred at the aggrieved woman's workplace at Krishi Bhawan. Under Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act, that's her 'workplace'. Why shouldn't the ICC there have jurisdiction over events that happened there?

My Lord, Section 2(o)(v) of the POSH Act defines 'workplace' broadly, but jurisdiction under Section 11 is separate from the definition of 'workplace'. Something can happen at a 'workplace' for the purpose of defining where an incident occurred, but the inquiry into that incident must be conducted by the ICC of the respondent's own workplace. The POSH Act distinguishes between the location of the incident and the forum for inquiry. Otherwise, an employee could be hauled before the ICC of any place they ever visited during employment, which would be absurd. The controlling factor is the respondent's employment and the service rules applicable to the respondent, which only his own department's ICC can apply.

If we accept your interpretation, a woman who is harassed at her desk by a visitor from another department would have to file a complaint before the ICC of the visitor's department — which might be in a different city and completely inaccessible. Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of the POSH Act?

My Lord, with respect, the remedy is not to stretch jurisdiction beyond its statutory limits but to ensure that the respondent's ICC can conduct inquiries remotely or through video conferencing. The Department of Revenue's ICC can certainly call witnesses, including the aggrieved woman, to record evidence. The location of the inquiry is not an insurmountable barrier. The POSH Act itself does not require physical presence; it requires a fair inquiry. Moreover, the aggrieved woman could also file a complaint before the Local Committee under Section 6 of the POSH Act as an alternative forum. The Act provides multiple remedies; we are not leaving her without a forum.

The Office Memorandum dated 16 July 2015 does not specifically address cross-departmental complaints. Why should we interpret silence as prohibition of the aggrieved woman's ICC conducting a preliminary fact-finding inquiry?

My Lord, the OM's silence reflects that the drafters did not contemplate cross-departmental complaints. When a statutory framework assumes a single employer and a single workplace, it is not for courts to create a bifurcated two-stage procedure that the legislature did not provide. The proper remedy is for the government to amend the OM or the Rules to create a clear procedure for cross-departmental complaints. In the absence of such procedure, the safe and legally correct course is to require the complaint to be filed with the respondent's ICC, which has the necessary disciplinary authority. Judicial creativity should not rewrite the statute.

You have not shown any actual prejudice caused by the ICC at the aggrieved woman's department conducting the preliminary inquiry. The Court has seen the sealed cover report and found no prejudice. Why should we set aside the proceedings on a technical jurisdictional ground when the merits remain to be decided?

My Lord, jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. If the ICC had no jurisdiction at the outset, everything it did — every notice, every hearing, every finding — is a nullity. Prejudice is not required to be shown when the defect is one of inherent lack of jurisdiction. This Court has consistently held that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and it can be challenged at any stage, even in execution. The same principle applies to quasi-judicial bodies like the ICC. The petitioner should not be forced to participate in proceedings before a forum that has no legal authority over him, regardless of whether prejudice is shown on the sealed cover report that he has not been permitted to see.

For PetitionerService Premium

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.

Dr Sohail Malik v. Union of India — (2025) INSC 1415

Core Argument

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. The ICC of the aggrieved woman's department cannot adjudicate because it has no disciplinary authority over the petitioner.

Key Precedents

Davies Jenkins & Co. Ltd. v. Davies (1968) AC 1097 — Although cited by the respondent, this case supports the petitioner because it requires careful attention to the grammatical and contextual meaning of 'where'; here, the context of Section 11 being a procedural provision indicates that 'where' introduces the forum, not a mere condition.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH 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 Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in