Dr. Sohail Malik vs Union of India & Anr.

Held: Aggrieved woman can approach ICC of her own department against harassment by an employee of another workplace – Phrase ‘where the respondent is an employee’ in s.11, cannot be interpreted to mean that ICC proceedings against ‘respondent’ may only be instituted before the ICC constituted at the workplace of the ‘respondent’ – Such restrictive interpretation of the POSH Act contrary to the scheme and object of the Act and its intent as a social welfare legislation, specifically in light of the wide definition of the term ‘workplace’ in s.2(o)(v) which include any place visited by the employee ‘arising out of or during the course of employment’ – U/s.13, recommendations and report of the ICC are to be sent to the ‘employer’ which shall then take a decision with respect to initiation of disciplinary action – In light of the OM dt 6.07.2025, ICC has a dual-role-to conduct the preliminary/fact-finding inquiry under POSH Act and to act as the inquiry authority in the formal disciplinary proceedings under the CCS CCA Rules, 1965, since nothing prevents the ICC constituted at the Department of the aggrieved woman from conducting the preliminary/fact-finding inquiry and upon receiving the report of the ICC, if the employer initiates disciplinary proceedings, the ICC constituted at the Department of the ‘respondent’ shall act as the inquiry authority in the disciplinary proceedings – In case the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace is conducting a fact-finding inquiry under the POSH Act, the employer of the ‘respondent’, even if it is a different department, must abide its duties u/s.19(f) to swiftly cooperate and make available information upon a request by the ICC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace, which has duly been complied with – ‘Respondent’ not shown that any prejudice has been caused to him due to the proceedings being carried out by the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman. [Para 72]

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – s.11 – Inquiry into the complaint – Textual interpretation of s.11 – Meaning of the word ‘where’ as used therein:

Held: s.11(1) envisages three distinct situations or contingencies, followed by how inquiry into a complaint is to be carried out by the ICC or Local Committee – Use of the word ‘where’ as it occurs in the contingency (i) and (ii), refers to two different conditions precedent/situations, where contingency (i) relates to a situation in case the ‘respondent’ is ‘employee’ under the meaning as prescribed under the POSH Act, inquiry must be made by the ICC in accordance with the service rules applicable to him, and contingency (ii) relates to a situation in case no such rules exist, it shall be inquired into by ICC in such manner as prescribed – Contingency (iii) is a different situation altogether-in case the ‘respondent’ is a domestic worker, the Local Committee shall, on taking a prima facie view about the existence of a case against ‘respondent’, forward the complaint to the police – Contingency (i) and (iii) operate in the form of ‘either-or’ – Grammatical function of the word ‘where’ as appearing in s.11 is that of a ‘conditional conjunction’– When the section is read as a whole, it has been constructed in the form of ‘where and where or, detailing three different contingencies and the procedure to be followed in each contingency – Merely the phrase ‘where the respondent is an employee’ cannot be read in isolation, all parts of the section must be read together to find out a workable conclusion – In case the ‘respondent’ is an ‘employee’, the ICC is obligated to apply the service rules applicable to him, but it does not mean that the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman cannot exercise jurisdiction – As such, the construction of s.11 is in the nature of a procedural section rather than one that lays down jurisdictional restraints. [Paras 42, 43, 45, 46]

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – s.11 – Inquiry into the complaint – Respondent, if to be employee of the same workplace as aggrieved woman:

Held: Definitions of the word ‘employee’ and ‘workplace’ are completely neutral, as they do not suggest that the ‘respondent’ must necessarily be an employee of the workplace where the aggrieved woman works – Expansive definitions of the words “respondent, employee and workplace” enable the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace to exercise jurisdiction over an employee of a different workplace – None of these definitions provide that the ‘respondent’ must necessarily be an employee of the same workplace where the aggrieved woman works – It cannot be said that in view of s.19(h), the only remedy available to the aggrieved woman when the perpetrator of sexual harassment is an outsider (employee of a different workplace) is to register a complaint under the IPC through the employer, since s.19(h) makes it a duty of the employer to facilitate the initiation of action under the IPC if the aggrieved woman so desires, it is not in derogation or exclusion of the power to initiate proceedings under the POSH Act – Even where the ‘respondent’ is not an employee anywhere, criminal proceedings may be initiated. [Paras 47, 49, 50] Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Contextual Interpretation of provisions of the POSH Act – Intent, purpose and context of the Act:

Held: POSH Act was enacted by the legislature, recognizing the legislative void – Its intent is to uphold women’s right to equality u/Arts.14 and 15 and right to a dignified life u/Art.21 – POSH Act does not merely punish acts of sexual harassment, but actively imposes a legal duty on employers to prohibit and prevent harassment – Narrow interpretation of provisions of the POSH Act, in order to hold that only the ICC of the workplace of the ‘respondent’ has jurisdiction to inquire into complaints against him, irrespective of where the workplace of the aggrieved woman is or where the alleged act of sexual harassment took place, would undermine the POSH Act’s remedial social welfare intent since it would create significant practical hurdles for the aggrieved woman – POSH Act, by introducing s. 2(o)(v) which enlarged the scope of ‘workplace’ to include any place visited by the employee during the course of employment, including during transportation, has expanded the scope of ‘workplace’ manifold – In such a case, the intent of the legislature was clearly to prohibit acts of sexual harassment at any place incidental to work and employment, at any place visited by the employees during the course of employment – Taboo around sexual harassment at the workplace and the fear of stigma which may be attached to the aggrieved woman as a consequence of a complaint regarding sexual harassment already poses a massive psychological barrier for the aggrieved women which actively dissuades them from pursuing their remedy in law – In view thereof, the intent of the legislature behind giving such a wide meaning to the word ‘workplace’ to go beyond the bounds of the traditional meaning implying location of the office, cannot be brushed aside by narrow construction of other provisions of the POSH Act – It cannot be said that only the ICC constituted at the workplace of the ‘respondent’ has the jurisdiction to entertain complaints and not the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace. [Paras 53, 54, 56, 57]

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – s.13 – Inquiry report – Construction and the scheme of s.13 – Role of ICC in conducting inquiry – Action to be taken by the department of the ‘respondent’ in pursuance of the findings of the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s department: Held: Under the scheme of the POSH Act and particularly u/s.13, nothing prevents the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman from carrying out the preliminary/fact-finding inquiry at the first stage – After completion of the fact-finding inquiry, the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman can send its recommendation and report to the employer of the ‘respondent’ – Upon receiving the findings and recommendations of the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman’s workplace, the employer of the ‘respondent’ and the Disciplinary Authority, upon making a decision that disciplinary proceedings are warranted, can then issue a charge-sheet to the ‘respondent’ and initiate disciplinary proceedings against him – In this inquiry, the ICC constituted at the workplace of the ‘respondent’ may conduct the second stage formal inquiry, acting as the inquiring authority for the purpose of the disciplinary proceedings – As such, the OM dated 16.07.2015, in respect of employees of the Government of India treats inquiry into complaints of sexual harassment as a two-stage process where there is a preliminary/fact-finding inquiry at first and then a disciplinary proceedings based on the findings of the preliminary/fact-finding inquiry – Fact that ultimately disciplinary action against the ‘respondent’ has to be taken by his employer and his department cannot be an impediment for the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman to take up the fact-finding inquiry u/s.11 when read with the OM – s.13(3)

(i) lays down that the ICC, upon reaching the conclusion that the allegations against the ‘respondent’ are proved, shall recommend to the employer to take disciplinary action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules of the ‘respondent’. [Paras 66, 67]

Interpretation of statutes – Principles of Statutory Interpretation – Relevance of text and context of a statute:

Held: Language employed in a statute is the best aid for statutory interpretation – Primary rule of construction is the intention of the legislature and the same must be found in the words used by the legislature itself – However, where there is doubt or ambiguity about the meaning of the words used, interpretation must be made keeping in mind the object and purpose of the statute – Thus, both text and context of a statute have their own relevance while interpreting provisions of a statute – Part of a section cannot be read in isolation, the construction of the entire section must be made as a sum of its parts and no word or phrase thereof can be picked out in isolation to give a certain meaning to the section as a whole. [Paras 32, 35]