The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a woman can file a sexual-harassment complaint with the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of her own workplace even if the accused is not employed there.

The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, who dismissed an appeal filed by an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer accused of sexually harassing an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer in her New Delhi office.

The bench said the purpose of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act would be diluted if women were forced to approach the ICC of every respondent’s organisation for incidents involving third parties.

“If the aggrieved woman had to approach the ICC constituted at the workplace of the respondent for every third-party incident, it would fall short of the object of the Act,” the court said.

The court added that requiring the respondent’s ICC to examine incidents that did not arise within their work environment “would create an impractical situation, as the incident may not be connected to their employer’s premises or work ecosystem”.

The incident occurred on May 15, 2023, when the IAS officer said she was sexually harassed at her workplace in Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. She later filed an FIR and submitted a complaint under the POSH Act to the ICC of the Department of Food and Public Distribution, where she worked.

The accused objected to this and challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction before the Central Administrative Tribunal and later in the Delhi High Court. He argued that as an employee of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Department of Revenue), only the ICC within his department could inquire into the allegations.

Both forums rejected his plea, after which he moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the narrow interpretation of “workplace” advanced in the appeal. It said an interpretation that restricted jurisdiction to the ICC of the respondent’s workplace “would undermine the POSH Act’s remedial and welfare-based intent”, adding that such a view would impose “significant practical hurdles” for women seeking redress.

The bench noted the psychological pressures that already deter women from reporting sexual harassment.

 “The taboo around sexual harassment at the workplace and the fear of stigma pose a substantial barrier for aggrieved women. In this context, the legislature’s intent to give a broad meaning to the term ‘workplace’, extending beyond the traditional office location, cannot be ignored,” the court said.

The court clarified that once the ICC at the woman’s workplace completes its inquiry, it must forward its recommendations to the employer of the respondent. The employer is then required to take disciplinary action under the applicable service rules.