In a significant judgment reinforcing the protective framework of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Supreme Court of India has allowed the continuation of POSH inquiry proceedings against IRS Officer Dr. Sohail Malik, rejecting his challenge to the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) conducting the investigation.
The ruling, delivered on December 10, 2025 by a Bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, clarifies that an ICC constituted in the workplace of the aggrieved woman has full authority to conduct a fact-finding inquiry, even if the accused officer is employed in a different ministry or department.
This decision upholds rulings by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court, both of which had dismissed Malik’s challenge to the inquiry initiated by the ICC of the Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs.
Background of the Case: Complaint by a 2004-Batch IAS Officer
The matter stems from allegations made by a 2004-batch IAS officer, then serving as Joint Secretary in the Department of Food and Public Distribution. She alleged that on May 15, 2023, IRS Officer Sohail Malik—a 2010-batch officer posted as OSD (Investigation) with the CBDT—sexually harassed her inside her office at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
Following the incident:
- An FIR was registered the next day.
- The Ministry’s Internal Complaints Committee initiated an inquiry under the POSH Act on May 24, 2023.
- The ICC issued a notice to Malik on June 13, 2023.
Malik challenged the jurisdiction of this ICC, arguing that only the ICC of his own department, the Department of Revenue, could legally examine the complaint because he fell under their disciplinary framework.
Both CAT and the Delhi High Court rejected this argument, leading to a final appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Key Finding: ICC of Aggrieved Woman’s Department Has Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court conducted an extensive analysis of the statutory scheme of the POSH Act, particularly Section 11, which deals with inquiry procedures.
The Court held that the phrase “where the respondent is an employee” does not create a jurisdictional restriction tying the inquiry only to the accused person’s department. Instead, it imposes an obligation on the ICC to apply the service rules relevant to the accused, regardless of the ICC’s departmental affiliation.
The Court observed:
“A narrow interpretation of the POSH Act… would undermine its remedial and social welfare intent.”
By endorsing a broad, purposive interpretation, the Court reaffirmed that the rights of the aggrieved woman cannot be curtailed by bureaucratic boundaries or departmental compartmentalisation.
Why the Accused’s Argument Was Rejected
Malik’s primary contention was that only his departmental ICC had the authority to investigate allegations against him.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument for multiple reasons:
1. POSH Act Intends Accessibility, Not Barriers
Restricting jurisdiction to the accused officer’s workplace would:
- force the aggrieved woman to approach another ministry,
- create logistical hurdles,
- delay proceedings,
- and ultimately dilute the protection guaranteed under the Act.
2. Definition of “Workplace” Is Intentionally Broad
The POSH Act defines workplace to include:
- any office or place visited by an employee during the course of employment,
- including transportation, off-site meetings, and government buildings.
Since the alleged harassment occurred inside the IAS officer’s workplace, the ICC there had clear authority to conduct the inquiry.
3. Two-Stage Process Under the Act
The Court clarified that POSH proceedings involve:
- Stage 1: Factual inquiry by the ICC at the aggrieved woman’s workplace.
- Stage 2: Disciplinary action by the employer of the accused officer (here, the Department of Revenue).
While the ICC of the IAS officer’s department conducts the inquiry, the IRS officer’s employer will ultimately act upon the findings.
POSH Mechanism Explained: ICC Findings Are Not Penalties
The Bench emphasised that the ICC’s role is fact-finding, not punishment:
“While the ICC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace may not have the authority to impose penalty on the respondent, its findings can certainly be acted upon by the employer of the respondent.”
This ensures:
- neutrality in inquiry,
- minimal burden on the complainant,
- and administrative feasibility.
The Court also noted that Malik’s department had fully cooperated with the ICC proceedings, as required by Section 19 of the Act. The Court examined the ICC’s sealed-cover report and found no prejudice caused to him due to the inquiry being done by another ministry.
Supreme Court’s Final Directions
The Supreme Court held that:
- The ICC of the IAS officer’s department had full jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry.
- Its findings must now be transmitted to the Department of Revenue.
- The Department must take appropriate disciplinary action under the CCS (CCA) Rules.
- The appeal filed by Sohail Malik is dismissed.
This ruling strengthens the POSH framework by preventing accused persons from evading inquiries due to administrative technicalities.
Significance of the Judgment
This decision is likely to have far-reaching impact on POSH inquiries across government departments and public sector offices.
1. Strengthens Women’s Access to Justice
Victims no longer need to navigate inter-departmental complexity or travel to the accused’s workplace ICC.
2. Prevents Misuse of Jurisdictional Technicalities
The judgment prevents accused employees from stalling inquiries by exploiting departmental boundaries.
3. Supports Uniformity in Government-Sector POSH Procedures
The clarification will help ministries and departments coordinate better in cases involving inter-departmental harassment.
4. Reinforces the Progressive Purpose of the POSH Act
The Court noted that the Act was enacted to remove barriers women face at the workplace — and its interpretation must reflect that intent.
Counsel Appearing in the Case
- For Appellant (Sohail Malik):
Piyush Sharma, Anuj Kumar Sharma, Aditya Dikshit, Shivesh Srivastava. - For Respondents:
Additional Solicitor Generals Aishwarya Bhati and Archana Pathak Dave, along with Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ruchi Kohli, Priyanka Das, Preeti Rani, BK Satija, Shubhranshu Padhi, Noor Rampal, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Abhay Kumar, Shagun Ruhil, Shreenivash, Rakesh Kumar.
Also Read
