Legal Review and Analysis of Dr Sohail Malik vs Union Of India & Anr 2025 INSC 1415

Case Synopsis

Dr. Sohail Malik vs Union Of India & Anr

Citation: 2025 INSC 1415

"Supreme Court holds ICC at victim's workplace has jurisdiction under POSH Act even against employees of other departments; prioritizes accessible redressal over departmental boundaries."

This judgment authoritatively settles that Section 11 of the POSH Act, 2013 does not restrict inquiry jurisdiction to the respondent's workplace. The ICC at the complainant's workplace (as broadly defined under Section 2(o)) is the competent forum, ensuring the Act's social welfare objective of accessible, victim-centric redressal is not defeated by inter-departmental employment structures.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Dr. Sohail Malik vs Union Of India & Anr
Citation: 2025 INSC 1415
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Date of Judgment: December 10, 2025
Civil Appeal No.: 404 of 2024

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following legislation:

• The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act):
  Section 2(a): Definition of “aggrieved woman”
  Section 2(f): Definition of “employee”
  Section 2(g): Definition of “employer”
  Section 2(m): Definition of “respondent”
  Section 2(o): Definition of “workplace” (especially clause (v))
  Section 9: Complaint of sexual harassment
  Section 11: Inquiry into complaint (central to the dispute)
  Section 13: Inquiry report and recommendations
  Section 19: Duties of the employer

• Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: Rule 3C

• Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Rule 14(2) and its proviso

• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 354, 354D, 506, 509

• Constitution of India: Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), and 21 (referenced for the foundational right to a safe workplace)

Key Precedents Cited

• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997)

• Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2013)

• Eera v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017)

• Balasinor Nagrik Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya (1987)

3. Basic Judgment Details

Facts of the Case

• The Appellant, Dr. Sohail Malik, a 2010-batch IRS officer, was posted in the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Delhi.

• The complainant, a 2004-batch IAS officer, was posted as Joint Secretary in the Department of Food and Public Distribution.

• She alleged that on May 15, 2023, the Appellant sexually harassed her at her workplace (Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi).

• An FIR was registered under IPC. Subsequently, she filed a complaint under the POSH Act before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted in her own department (Department of Food and Public Distribution).

• The Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of this ICC, arguing that only the ICC in his own department (Department of Revenue) could inquire into the complaint since he was not an employee of the complainant’s workplace.

Issues Framed by the Court

1. Whether the ICC constituted in one department of the Central Government has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the POSH Act against an employee of a different department?

2. Whether the phrase “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 of the POSH Act mandates that ICC proceedings must be at the respondent’s workplace?

3. How is action to be taken by the respondent’s department under Section 13 based on the findings of the ICC at the complainant’s department?

4. Whether the proceedings before the complainant’s ICC caused prejudice to the Appellant?

4. Ratio Decidendi (Court’s Reasoning)

Core Legal Principle Established

The ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman (complainant) has the jurisdiction to inquire into a complaint of sexual harassment under the POSH Act, even if the alleged perpetrator (respondent) is an employee of a different department or workplace.

Analysis of Section 11 and Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court engaged in a textual, contextual, and purposive interpretation of the POSH Act.

1. Textual Interpretation of “where” in Section 11: The Court held that the word “where” in Section 11(1) (“where the respondent is an employee”) is a conditional conjunction (meaning “in case” or “if”), not a spatial or jurisdictional term. It introduces a procedural condition—which set of rules to apply—not a limitation on which ICC can hear the case. The phrase simply triggers the application of the respondent’s service rules to the inquiry procedure.

2. Definitions are Neutral and Expansive: The definitions of “respondent” (any person complained against), “employee” (a person employed at *a* workplace), and especially “workplace” are broad and do not require the complainant and respondent to share the same employer. Section 2(o)(v) crucially includes “any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment.” This indicates the Act’s intent to cover incidents beyond the physical office of the respondent.

3. Purposive and Contextual Interpretation: The Court emphasized that the POSH Act is a social welfare legislation born from the need to enforce fundamental rights (Articles 14, 15, 21). A restrictive interpretation forcing a victim to approach the ICC at the respondent’s alien workplace would create psychological and procedural barriers, defeating the Act’s very objective of providing an accessible, safe, and effective redressal mechanism.

Harmonizing Inquiry with Disciplinary Action

The Court resolved the practical concern of how a finding by one department’s ICC could lead to action against an employee of another department:

• The ICC at the complainant’s workplace conducts a preliminary/fact-finding inquiry under the POSH Act.

• Its report is sent to the employer of the respondent as per Section 13.

• The respondent’s employer (disciplinary authority) then decides on initiating formal departmental proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

• In this second, disciplinary stage, the ICC at the respondent’s department can act as the Inquiring Authority, considering the initial fact-finding report. This two-stage process is supported by the Government’s Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2015.

Finding on Prejudice

The Court found no prejudice was caused to the Appellant. His department had cooperated with the ICC by providing necessary information, fulfilling its duty under Section 19(f) of the POSH Act.

5. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld the jurisdiction of the ICC constituted at the Department of Food and Public Distribution to inquire into the complaint against Dr. Sohail Malik. The Court directed that the ICC’s report (held in a sealed cover) be transmitted to the Appellant’s department (Department of Revenue), which must then proceed in accordance with the service rules.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India, the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 of the POSH Act to mean?
a) The ICC must be located in the geographical area of the respondent’s workplace.
b) It is a conditional clause specifying which procedural rules apply to the inquiry.
c) It mandates that the complainant must be an employee of the same organization as the respondent.
d) It restricts complaints to incidents occurring only within the respondent’s office building.

Question 2: According to the judgment, which of the following is the PRIMARY reason for allowing the ICC at the complainant’s workplace to have jurisdiction over an employee of a different department?
a) To increase the caseload of all ICCs uniformly.
b) To avoid creating procedural and psychological barriers for the aggrieved woman, aligning with the POSH Act’s social welfare objective.
c) Because the respondent’s department is always non-cooperative.
d) To ensure that punishment is awarded by the complainant’s employer.