In a significant ruling on December 10, 2025, the Supreme Court settled an important question of jurisdiction under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Court dismissed the civil appeal filed in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., holding that an Internal Complaints Committee formed at the workplace of an aggrieved woman can hear a sexual harassment complaint even when the respondent works for another government department.
The case arose from a complaint by a 2004-batch IAS officer serving as Joint Secretary in the Department of Food and Public Distribution. She alleged that Dr. Sohail Malik, a 2010-batch IRS officer posted as OSD (Investigation) in the CBDT, sexually harassed her at Krishi Bhawan on May 15, 2023. She placed the complaint before her department’s ICC. Dr. Malik objected, arguing that only the ICC of his own employer, the Department of Revenue, could act on the complaint. He relied on his reading of Section 11 of the POSH Act to claim that the inquiry must be conducted at the respondent’s workplace.
The Supreme Court rejected this view. It held that limiting jurisdiction in this way would conflict with the scheme of the Act, which gives a broad definition of “workplace” and is designed as social welfare legislation protecting a woman’s right to a safe working environment under Article 21. Justice J. K. Maheshwari clarified that the word “where” in Section 11(1) refers to a situation, not a physical place. It operates as a procedural direction to apply the respondent’s service rules during the inquiry, not as a bar on the ICC that can hear the complaint.
The Court explained how inter-departmental complaints should be handled for Central Government employees. It referred to the two-stage process set out in the Office Memorandum dated July 16, 2015. The ICC at the woman’s workplace is responsible for the preliminary fact-finding inquiry. Once its report and recommendations are sent to the respondent’s employer, the disciplinary authority must decide whether to initiate formal proceedings.
If disciplinary proceedings are opened, the ICC of the respondent’s department will act as the inquiring authority at that second stage. This approach aligns the POSH Act with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
The Court directed that the ICC report be transmitted to Dr. Malik’s department without delay for action under the POSH Act and the applicable service rules. The appeal was dismissed along with all pending applications.
Case: Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2024, Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr.
