Sexual Harassment at Workplace : Complaints Committee : Presiding Officer can be junior to the officer against whom allegations are made.
Bombay High Court Upholds Validity of ICC Constitution in Sexual Harassment Case Court dismisses plea challenging the Internal Complaints Committee's formation, affirms compliance with POSH Act provisions.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 14, 2025, the Bombay High Court upheld the constitutionality of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) formed by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) to investigate allegations of sexual harassment against Dr. Shyam Bihari, a Medical Officer employed by the corporation. The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Dr. Bihari challenging the ICC's composition and subsequent inquiry findings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The petitioner, Dr. Shyam Bihari, had contested the validity of the ICC's formation, arguing that it did not comply with Section 4 of the POSH Act. He claimed that the Presiding Officer was not senior in rank to him, as allegedly required by the Act. Furthermore, he raised concerns over the inclusion of a member with consultancy ties to NPCIL and questioned the impartiality of another member due to her residential proximity to the complainant's family.
However, the Division Bench, comprising Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, dismissed these arguments, clarifying that the Act mandates the Presiding Officer to be a "woman employed at a senior level at the workplace," without specifying that she must be senior to the accused officer. The court further affirmed that the inclusion of a member familiar with sexual harassment issues was valid under Section 4(2)(c) of the Act, irrespective of consultancy arrangements with NPCIL.
Addressing the petitioner's objections raised post-inquiry, the court emphasized that participation in the inquiry without protest constitutes a waiver of such objections. The judgment cited precedents from the Supreme Court, underscoring that belated challenges to committee compositions, especially after unfavourable outcomes, are impermissible.
The court also highlighted the procedural integrity of the disciplinary proceedings, noting that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to respond to the inquiry report, in line with the NPCIL (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1996. The principles of natural justice were deemed satisfied as the petitioner could submit his representation before any penalties were imposed.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding statutory frameworks designed to address workplace sexual harassment. It reaffirms the legal provisions ensuring fair and impartial inquiries, reinforcing the legislative intent behind the POSH Act.
Bottom Line:
The constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 is valid if it complies with Section 4, irrespective of whether the Presiding Officer is senior in rank to the officer against whom allegations are made.
Statutory provision(s): Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Sections 4(2)(a), 4(2)(c), 18; NPCIL (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1996 - Clause 5.0
