Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises out of a jurisdictional challenge by Dr. Sohail Malik, a 2010 batch Indian Revenue Service officer posted as OSD, Investigation, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi. A 2004 batch Indian Administrative Service officer posted as Joint Secretary, Department of Food and Public Distribution alleged that on 15 May 2023 the appellant sexually harassed her at her workplace in Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. An FIR was registered on 16 May 2023 under Sections 354, 354D, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, and a chargesheet was subsequently filed. Separately, the aggrieved woman filed a complaint under the POSH Act before the Internal Complaints Committee constituted at her own department, the Department of Food and Public Distribution. The ICC issued a notice to the appellant to appear on 22 June 2023 along with his response. The appellant challenged the ICC's jurisdiction by filing an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, contending that the ICC of a different department cannot entertain a complaint against him. The CAT dismissed the application, and the High Court of Delhi confirmed that order. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. On 18 July 2023, the Court directed that the inquiry may proceed but its final outcome be kept in a sealed cover. During the hearing, the court examined the scheme of the POSH Act, tracing its origins to the Vishaka guidelines and the interim clarification in Medha Kotwal Lele that the Complaints Committee would be deemed an inquiry authority under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The Court analysed the definitions of 'aggrieved woman', 'employee', 'employer', 'respondent', 'workplace' and 'sexual harassment' under the Act, and the provisions relating to constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee, filing of complaints and inquiry procedure. The core legal issue centred on whether the ICC where the aggrieved woman works could exercise jurisdiction over a respondent employed in a different government department. The judgment, as per the available text, did not record a final determination, but the interim order maintained the status quo and preserved the subject matter of the inquiry pending resolution.
Headnote
A) Sexual Harassment at Workplace - Jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committee - Whether ICC constituted in one Government department can entertain complaint against employee of another department - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(g), 2(m), 2(o), 4, 9, 11 - The aggrieved woman, posted in Department of Food and Public Distribution, filed complaint against appellant, an IRS officer then posted in Central Board of Direct Taxes. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the ICC of the aggrieved woman's department. The Central Administrative Tribunal and High Court dismissed his challenge, upholding ICC's jurisdiction. Pending appeal, the Supreme Court directed the inquiry to proceed but final outcome to be kept in sealed cover. (Paras 2, 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Internal Complaints Committee constituted at a certain Department of the Government of India can entertain a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 against an employee who was working at a different Department of the Government of India at the relevant time.
Law Points
- sexual harassment at workplace is a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14
- 15
- 19(1)(g)
- 21
- Vishaka guidelines
- ICC deemed inquiry authority for CCS (Conduct) Rules
- definition of aggrieved woman
- employee
- employer
- workplace
- sexual harassment under POSH Act
- complaint procedure under Section 9
- inquiry under Section 11 as per service rules of respondent
