Published on: 04th March 2026
Authored by: Samiksha Sharma
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat
Case Title & Citation: Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2751
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Bench Type: Division Bench
Date of Judgment: 10 December 2025
PARTIES INVOLVED
Appellant: Dr. Sohail Malik, a 2010-batch Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer. At the time of the case, he was the Officer on Special Duty (Investigation) at the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi.
Respondents: Union of India and others, including authorities from the Department of Food and Public Distribution and other governmental bodies responsible for enforcing the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case arose from a sexual harassment complaint made by a senior female civil servant against the appellant. The woman was a 2004-batch Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer who served as Joint Secretary in the Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, working from Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
On 15 May 2023, she accused the appellant of sexually harassing her at work. Following this, an FIR numbered 53 of 2023 was filed on 16 May 2023 under Sections 354, 354-D, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A charge-sheet was later filed, and criminal proceedings were ongoing when the Supreme Court reviewed the case.
Separately, the woman filed a complaint on 24 May 2023 under Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) with the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) at her workplace.
In response, the ICC issued a notice dated 13 June 2023 asking the appellant to appear and respond. The appellant contested the ICC’s authority by submitting Original Application No. 1838 of 2023 to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. He argued that since he worked for a different department, only the ICC of his department had the power to investigate.
The CAT rejected the Original Application, stating that the ICC where the aggrieved woman worked had the authority to conduct the inquiry. The appellant then appealed to the Delhi High Court, which upheld the CAT’s ruling in a judgment dated 30 June 2023.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the appellant filed a Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2024 in the Supreme Court, focusing solely on the legal question regarding the ICC’s authority under the POSH Act.
ISSUES RAISED
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether an Internal Complaints Committee constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman has jurisdiction to inquire into a complaint under the POSH Act against a respondent who is employed in a different department.
- Whether the phrase “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11(1) of the POSH Act limits the jurisdiction of the ICC to the workplace of the respondent alone.
- Whether such an interpretation would defeat the object and purpose of the POSH Act.
- Whether the proceedings before the ICC at the workplace of the aggrieved woman caused any prejudice to the appellant warranting interference by the Supreme Court.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Arguments of the Appellant
The appellant claimed that the POSH Act, alongside the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, forms a complete set of rules for handling sexual harassment cases against civil servants. He argued that only the ICC from his own department could take charge since only his employer could impose discipline.
He heavily relied on Section 11(1) of the POSH Act, particularly the part stating “where the respondent is an employee,” to argue that the inquiry should only be conducted by the respondent’s ICC. The appellant also suggested that allowing ICCs from other departments to investigate would create confusion and violate service laws.
Additionally, he argued that if the alleged harasser is not at the same workplace, the woman should seek remedy under criminal law as described in Section 19(h) of the POSH Act.
Arguments of the Respondents
The respondents opposed the appeal, arguing that the POSH Act is designed to protect women from workplace harassment. A narrow interpretation of its provisions would defeat its purpose.
They pointed out that the definition of “workplace” in Section 2(o) of the POSH Act is intentionally broad, covering any place an employee visits as part of their job.1 Thus, the ICC at the aggrieved woman’s workplace could investigate her complaint regardless of the respondent’s department.
The respondents further clarified that the duty to investigate and the power to impose disciplinary action are different, and the ICC’s findings can be presented to the respondent’s employer, who can act according to service rules.
1 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, No. of 2013, § 2(o) (India).
JUDGMENT / FINAL DECISION
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court. The Court ruled that the Internal Complaints Committee at the workplace of the aggrieved woman had the authority to investigate under the POSH Act, even if the respondent worked in a different department.
The Court found that the appellant’s claim regarding Section 11(1) limiting jurisdiction based on the respondent’s workplace lacked merit. It also determined that the ICC proceedings did not harm the appellant.2
LEGAL REASONING / RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court conducted a thorough textual and purposive interpretation of the POSH Act. It noted that the term “where” in Section 11(1) functions as a conditional word indicating a situation, not a geographical limit. The phrase “where the respondent is an employee” simply triggers the required procedures and does not define which ICC has authority.
The Court stated that Section 11 is a procedural rule outlining how the inquiry should occur based on the respondent’s status, rather than a rule that limits authority to a specific ICC.3
Using the definitions of “workplace,” “employee,” and “respondent” from Sections 2(o), 2(f), and 2(m) of the POSH Act, the Court concluded that the law does not require the aggrieved woman and the respondent to work at the same location.
The Court stressed that the POSH Act is a social welfare law grounded in constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 214, as well as obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). A narrow interpretation would create barriers for women seeking justice.
2 Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2751 (India).
3 Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, No. of 2013, § 11 (India).
4 India Const. arts. 14-15, 21.
The Court also highlighted the difference between fact-finding and disciplinary authority. While the ICC at the woman’s workplace may not impose punishment, its findings can be shared with the respondent’s employer, who can then take appropriate action under service rules.
An Internal Complaints Committee at the aggrieved woman’s workplace has jurisdiction under the POSH Act to investigate a sexual harassment complaint even when the respondent is in a different department, as Section 11(1) is procedural and not jurisdictional.
CONCLUSION
The ruling in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Another is an important decision regarding the authority of Internal Complaints Committees under the POSH Act. The Supreme Court’s interpretation emphasized the need for the Act to further its goals of protection and remedy.
The judgment reinforces the idea that procedural rules should not hinder women from accessing justice for workplace sexual harassment. It acknowledges the realities of modern workplaces, especially in government, where collaboration between departments is common.
By clearly distinguishing between inquiry and disciplinary actions, the Court ensured that administrative convenience does not compromise substantial justice. The ruling enhances the effectiveness of the POSH framework and upholds the government’s commitment to providing a safe and respectful work environment for women.
