The Kerala High Court held that when the complaint/allegation does not constitute “sexual harassment” as defined under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, 2013, the jurisdictional fact for taking cognizance is missing and the complaint cannot be proceeded with under the provisions of the Act.

The petitioner, working as the Manager of Kerala State Financial Corporation (KSFE), approached the High Court impugning the proceedings initiated by the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) on a complaint filed by the third respondent.

The Single Bench of Justice D. K. Singh noted, “The complaint that has been re-produced above does not have an allegation of ‘physical contact and advances, a demand or request of sexual favour or making sexually coloured remarks…’.

Advocate K.M.Sathyanatha Menon represented the Petitioner while Advocate Gopikrishnan Nambiar M represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Petitioner issued a memo to eight Junior female staff in his office for the non-achievement of a chitty canvassing target. In absence of a proper explanation to the memo, the petitioner reported the matter to the higher authorities. The third respondent, who was not even working in the branch headed by the petitioner along with several members of the political union from various branches forcibly entered the cabin of the petitioner at and misbehaved with him.

The third respondent thereafter made a complaint to the ICC wherein she stated that as an office bearer of the Party, she entered the cabin of the Petitioner where he tried to record her video and shouted at her to get out of the cabin in obscene language. It was on this complaint that a notice was issued to the Petitioner.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the complaint did not have an allegation of ‘physical contact and advances, a demand or request of sexual favour or making sexually coloured remarks or showing pornography or any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature’.

Even if the complaint was believed to be correct, the only allegation was that the petitioner tried to record the conversation and he hurled abuses on the 3rd respondent and other employees who were present there at the cabin of the petitioner. The complaint was about the language used by the petitioner and the alleged insult caused to the 3rd respondent.

It was further noted that the 3rd respondent is not employed in KSFE, Vikas Bhavan Branch and even though the petitioner did not give her permission, she allegedly made a forceful entry into the petitioner’s cabin.

“When the complaint/allegation does not constitute “sexual harassment” as defined under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, 2013, the jurisdictional fact for taking cognizance on such a complaint and issuing notice to the petitioner is missing. Therefore, this complaint cannot be proceeded with under the provisions of the POSH Act, 2013”, the Bench said.

Cause Title: X v. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:11075)

Appearance:

Peititoner: Advocates K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, Ayisha, Anjali Nirmal Das P

Respondent: Advocates Gopikrishnan Nambiar M, Salil Narayanan K.A., K.S.Arun Kumar, K.John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Amrutha K P, K.Bincymol

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice DK SinghPOSH ActSexual Harassment

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.