ICC Recommendations Under POSH Act Mandatory, Not Merely Recommendatory In Nature: Allahabad High Court
The Court held that the statutory scheme of the 2013 Act, including appeal provisions and penalties for non-compliance, reflects a legislative intent that recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee must be implemented by the employer.
The Allahabad High Court has held that the recommendations made by the Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, are mandatory in nature and not merely recommendatory or directory.
The Court observed that the statutory framework leaves no discretion with the employer except to act upon such recommendations in accordance with service rules.
The Court was hearing writ petitions challenging suspension orders passed against members of an Internal Complaints Committee following submission of its report in a sexual harassment complaint under the Act of 2013.
A Bench of Justice Manish Mathur observed: “In terms of surrounding circumstances, as well as looking into the intention of legislature and to give a meaningful object to the Act of 2013 so that it ensures a smooth and harmonious working and is also reasonable, it can thus be deduced from the aforesaid provision that the recommendations made by the complaints committee under Section 13 or 14 of the Act of 2013 are mandatory in nature and not merely recommendatory or directory”.
Senior Advocate Sharad Pathak appeared for the Petitioners; Additional Advocate General S.M. Singh Royekwar appeared for the State.
Background
A complaint of sexual harassment was made against a departmental officer, pursuant to which an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted under the Act of 2013. The Committee conducted inquiry proceedings and submitted a report exonerating the delinquent officer.
Subsequently, allegations were raised regarding the manner in which the inquiry was conducted, including disregard of certain testimony and reliance on allegedly irrelevant material. On this basis, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the members of the Committee, and they were placed under suspension, which was challenged before the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework of the Act of 2013, particularly Sections 11, 13, 18 and 26, along with Rules 7 and 9, to determine the nature of recommendations made by the Internal Complaints Committee. It was observed that the inquiry conducted under Section 11 is comprehensive and conclusive in nature, with the Committee vested with powers akin to a civil court for investigation.
The Court noted that Section 13 empowers the Committee not only to record findings but also to recommend specific actions, including treating the act of sexual harassment as misconduct and suggesting appropriate penalties. It held that once such an inquiry is completed, “no further inquiry is contemplated” under service rules, and the role of the employer is confined to acting upon the findings in accordance with applicable provisions.
Emphasising the legislative intent, the Court observed that “the intent of legislature and the wordings of the Act confer complete power upon the complaints committee not only to inquire into the complaint of sexual harassment but also to make its recommendations in terms of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 2013 which are required to be complied with by the employer or the district officer, treating such a recommendation to be a misconduct”.
It further noted that the statutory scheme provides a right of appeal only against the recommendations of the Committee under Section 18, and not against the action taken by the employer pursuant thereto.
“As indicated herein above, Section 26 (1)(b) of the Act also imposes penalty upon the employer for non-compliance of recommendations made by the complaint committee… as has also been discussed herein above, provision of appeal in Section 18 of the Act has been provided only against the recommendations of the complaints committee and not against action taken by the employer in terms thereof”, the Bench highlighted.
Relying on principles of purposive interpretation, the Court held that the provisions must be construed in a manner that advances the object of the legislation and ensures its effective implementation.
“The doctrine also indicates that meaning of words used in a provision is required to be comprehended to advance the purpose of object and to remedy the mischief, if any, which it sought to remedy, … context includes reading the statute or the provision as a whole with the surrounding circumstances so that its intention is in consonance with the policy in order to give it a meaningful object”, the Court elaborated.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee are binding and must be acted upon by the employer in terms of the Act of 2013.
Accordingly, while examining the suspension of the Committee members, the Court quashed the impugned suspension orders for lack of application of mind, granting liberty to the authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Km. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC-LKO:26942)
Appearances
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Sharad Pathak; Advocate Priya Singh
Respondents: Additional Advocate General S.M. Singh Royekwar; Advocate Akash Sinha