Section 16 POSH Act Does Not Bar Providing Relevant Inquiry Documents To Employee Facing Disciplinary Proceedings: Kerala High Court
The High Court held that Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act only restricts publication of complaint contents to the public or media and does not prevent an employee from obtaining relevant materials relied upon in disciplinary proceedings.
Justice N. Nagaresh, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that the confidentiality requirement under Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, does not prevent an employee facing disciplinary proceedings from receiving copies of documents relied upon against him.
The Court clarified that the provision only prohibits publication of complaint-related materials to the public, press or media.
The Court was hearing two writ petitions filed by an employee of the Food Corporation of India, challenging transfer orders and seeking copies of statements and documents relied upon in disciplinary proceedings initiated following a complaint of sexual harassment before the Internal Complaints Committee.
A Bench of Justice N. Nagresh observed: “Section 16 only prevents publication, communication and making the contents known to the public, press and media in any manner. Section 16 shall not disentitle the petitioner to get copies of relevant materials, when the petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings”.
Advocate D. Kishore appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu and L. Sundaresan, ASGI, represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-I (Technical) in the Food Corporation of India at its Divisional Office in Thiruvananthapuram. Disputes arose between the petitioner and certain family members regarding a will allegedly executed by his father-in-law, following which a complaint was made to the authorities.
Subsequently, a complaint was lodged before the Internal Complaints Committee alleging that the petitioner had made sexually coloured remarks and circulated rumours about a colleague. Based on the complaint, the Internal Complaints Committee initiated proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.
During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner sought copies of the statements of the complainant and witnesses as well as other documents relied upon in the inquiry. The request was declined because such materials were protected from disclosure under Section 16 of the POSH Act.
The petitioner was also served with a memorandum of charges, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. In the meantime, he was transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Karnataka and subsequently to Andhra Pradesh through general transfer orders, which were also challenged before the Court.
The petitioner contended that the denial of copies of the materials relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice and impaired his ability to effectively defend the charges against him.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the scope of Section 16 of the POSH Act, which mandates confidentiality regarding complaints of sexual harassment and related proceedings.
The Court noted that the provision is intended to prevent disclosure of sensitive information to the public domain. However, it does not prohibit providing relevant documents to a person against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated.
In this regard, the Court observed: “Section 16 only prohibits publication of the contents of the complaint, the identity and address of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses, any information relating to conciliation and inquiry proceedings, recommendations of the internal committee, etc”.
The Court emphasised that confidentiality requirements under the statute cannot override the fundamental principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.
The Court held that an employee facing charges must be given access to the materials relied upon by the employer to effectively defend himself in the inquiry.
In this context, the Court stated that “…providing copies of relevant documents to the petitioner will not amount to publication/communication/making known to the public, press or media the contents thereof.”
The Court therefore concluded that the petitioner was entitled to obtain copies of all relevant materials that were relied upon by the respondents to sustain the disciplinary charges against him.
The Court also examined the challenge to the transfer order issued against the petitioner. It noted that the transfer order was part of a general transfer involving multiple officials and that the petitioner had been serving in the same region for more than a decade. In these circumstances, the Court found no material to conclude that the transfer was punitive or discriminatory.
Similarly, the Court declined to interfere with the decision withdrawing the petitioner’s status as a protected workman in light of pending disciplinary proceedings.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court dismissed both writ petitions challenging the transfer orders and related administrative decisions. However, the Court clarified that the petitioner must be provided copies of all relevant documents relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings.
The Court also directed that the petitioner be permitted to engage the assistance of a departmental assistant to defend the charges during the inquiry.
Cause Title: Linson K. Thomas v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:21938)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates D. Kishore, Meera Gopinath, Anant Kishore
Respondents: K. Jaju Babu, Senior Advocate; Advocates Karthik S Acharya, Jose Kuriakose (Vilangattil), M. Rajendran Nair (Thonnalloor), Renjith R. Nair, Sanoj R. Nair, Sreejith R. Nair; Karthik S.A., CGC; L. Sundaresan, ASGI.
