The Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace Act was notified in 2013.
The Supreme court has ruled that the ICCs can hear cases against outsiders as well.
The top court has said women should not be forced to approach the ICCs of different companies in the case of incidences of harassment from third parties.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that women can file complaints of sexual harassment with the Internal Complaints Committee of their own companies even if the person accused does not work there.
“If the aggrieved woman had to approach the ICC constituted at the workplace of the respondent for every third-party incident, it would fall short of the object of the Act,” said Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi.
The top court was hearing an appeal filed by an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer who had been accused of sexually harassing an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer in her office in New Delhi. While dismissing the appeal, the court said forcing women to approach the ICCs of companies where different respondents worked would dilute the purpose of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act.
The court also reasoned that if the respondent’s ICC was forced to examine incidents that did not arise within their work environment, that “would create an impractical situation, as the incident may not be connected to their employer’s premises or work ecosystem.”
The incident occurred on May 15, 2023, when the IAS officer said she was sexually harassed at her workplace in Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. She filed a police complaint and also a complaint under the POSH Act to the ICC of the Department where she worked— Department of Food and Public Distribution.
The accused had challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and thereafter in the Delhi High Court. As an employee of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Department of Revenue), only the ICC within his department could inquire into the allegations, he had argued.
Both CAT and DHC rejected his plea, after which he moved the Supreme Court, where it was dismissed on the basis that the term workplace should not be narrowly interpretated. The top court said that such a narrow interpretation “would undermine the POSH Act’s remedial and welfare-based intent”, saying it would impose “significant practical hurdles” for women seeking redress.
The bench also added that there were significant psychological pressures on women that deter them from filing POSH complaints already.
“The taboo around sexual harassment at the workplace and the fear of stigma pose a substantial barrier for aggrieved women. In this context, the legislature’s intent to give a broad meaning to the term ‘workplace’, extending beyond the traditional office location, cannot be ignored,” the court said.
The court said that after the ICC at the woman’s workplace finishes its inquiry, it should forward its recommendations to the employer of the respondent. The employer would then have to take disciplinary action under the applicable service rules.
