ICC Cannot Label Instigator Of False Sexual Harassment Complaint Under POSH Act As ‘Unknown’ When Identity Is Disclosed: Bombay High Court
|The Court held that once the ICC closed proceedings based on a retraction letter naming the instigator, it could not record the source of instigation as “unknown”.
The Bombay High Court has held that an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) cannot describe the source of instigation as “unknown” in cases involving false sexual harassment complaints under the POSH Act, where the complainant has expressly identified the person responsible in a retraction letter, and such omission cannot be sustained in law.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Tribunal that dismissed an appeal filed under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
A Bench of Justice Dr Neela Gokhale observed that “having closed the complaint on the basis of the retraction letter sent by the Respondent No. 4-Complainant, the ICC cannot selectively omit to name the source of instigation, when he is named in the same retraction letter”.
“The conclusion of the ICC in its Inquiry Report, to the extent that it records that some ‘unknown source’ has influenced the Respondent No. 4 to file a false sexual harassment complaint against the Petitioner, cannot be sustained”, the Bench added.
Advocate Shivraj Gaonkar appeared for the Petitioner, while Rishikesh Gawas, Additional Government Advocate, & Advocate Annelise Fernandes appeared for the respondents.
Background
The case arose from a complaint of sexual harassment filed by Respondent No. 4 against the petitioner, a government employee. Subsequently, the complainant issued a retraction letter stating that she had been forced to sign a pre-prepared complaint at the instance of Respondent No. 3, the Principal of the institute.
The ICC, relying on this retraction, closed the proceedings and concluded that the complaint was false. However, instead of naming Respondent No. 3, it recorded that the complainant had been influenced by an “unknown source” to file the complaint.
Aggrieved by this omission, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Industrial Tribunal, which was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner then approached the High Court challenging the Tribunal’s order.
Court’s Observation
The High Court, upon hearing the matter, held that the ICC had committed a clear error in recording the source of instigation as “unknown”.
It observed: “the ICC clearly failed in the discharge of its duties… despite it being a matter of record that the source of instigation was ‘known’ to be the Respondent No. 3.”
The Court further held that the ICC could not rely on the retraction letter while simultaneously ignoring the specific allegation contained therein.
The Court noted that “the grievance of the Petitioner… is limited to the omission of the name of the Respondent No. 3 as the source of instigation”, and held that “ such omission could not be sustained in law.
While observing that “the Petitioner is clearly a person aggrieved… and has a statutory right to prefer an appeal… It is not necessary… to show any direct injury”, the Court found fault with the Tribunal for dismissing the appeal without addressing this limited grievance.
Accordingly, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, the Court directed that the words “unknown source” be replaced with the name of the instigator.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that action under Section 14 of the POSH Act is limited.
It held that the provision applies only to the complainant or person making the complaint, observing that the statute “does not provide for action… against a person who may have instigated a woman… making the complaint.”
Accordingly, the petitioner’s request for disciplinary action against Respondent No. 3 under the POSH Act was rejected.
Conclusion
The High Court set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal and modified the ICC’s Inquiry Report to reflect the named instigator correctly.
The petition was partly allowed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against Respondent No. 3 before a competent forum in accordance with law.
Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:849)