New Delhi: In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India, on December 10, 2025, delivered a comprehensive judgment in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., definitively settling a crucial jurisdictional issue under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The Court dismissed a civil appeal filed by Dr. Sohail Malik, an IRS officer, thereby affirming that the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted at the workplace of an aggrieved woman is competent to entertain and inquire into a sexual harassment complaint against a respondent who is an employee of a separate government department.
The jurisdictional challenge arose from a complaint filed by a 2004-batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, posted as Joint Secretary, Department of Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi. She alleged that Dr. Sohail Malik, a 2010-batch IRS officer posted as OSD (Investigation), Central Board of Direct Taxes, sexually harassed her at her workplace in Krishi Bhawan on May 15, 2023. The aggrieved woman lodged a complaint with the ICC of her own department. Dr. Malik contested this, arguing that only the ICC constituted by his employer—the Department of Revenue—had jurisdiction to proceed against him, primarily relying on his interpretation of Section 11 of the POSH Act.
The appellant’s contention was that the phrase “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11(1) of the POSH Act mandates the inquiry to be conducted by the ICC at the respondent’s workplace. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, stating that such a “restrictive interpretation of the POSH Act would run contrary to the scheme of the Act, specifically in light of the all-encompassing and wide definition given to the term ‘workplace’ in Section 2(o) of the POSH Act.” The Court emphasized that the POSH Act is a “social welfare legislation” intended to enforce a woman’s right to a safe environment free from sexual harassment under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice J.K. Maheshwari, authoring the judgment, clarified the meaning of the crucial word “where” in Section 11(1), holding that the word “is quite clearly used in the context of a situation rather than a place.” It was deemed a “procedural trigger, directing the ICC to apply the service rules applicable to the ‘respondent’; it is not a jurisdictional constraint limiting a particular ICC from hearing the complaint.” The Court further noted that the narrow interpretation advocated by Dr. Malik “would undermine the POSH Act’s remedial social welfare intent, as it would create significant practical hurdles for the aggrieved woman.”
The judgment also provided clarity on the procedural mechanism for inter-departmental complaints, particularly for Central Government employees. The Court recognised the two-stage inquiry process outlined in the Government of India’s Office Memorandum dated July 16, 2015. The ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace is competent to conduct the first stage, which is the “preliminary/fact-finding inquiry.” Upon submission of the inquiry report and recommendations to the respondent’s employer, the employer—acting as the Disciplinary Authority—will decide whether disciplinary proceedings are warranted.
Addressing the initiation of disciplinary action, the Court observed:
“Upon receiving the findings and recommendations of the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace, the employer of the ‘respondent’, being the Disciplinary Authority, upon deciding that disciplinary proceedings are warranted, may issue a charge-sheet to the ‘respondent’ and initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.”
In the event of formal disciplinary proceedings, the Court explained that the ICC constituted at the respondent’s department would then act as the inquiring authority at the second stage, thereby harmonising the POSH Act with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
The judgment concluded by directing that the report of the ICC “shall be transmitted to the Department of the appellant forthwith, which shall take further action as necessary under the POSH Act, following the procedure prescribed in the relevant service rules.” The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
