In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court held that an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) cannot proceed with a complaint if the allegations do not meet the definition of “sexual harassment” under Section 2(n) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Justice D.K. Singh, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the jurisdictional basis for the ICC to take cognizance of a complaint is absent if the allegations fail to constitute sexual harassment as defined in the Act. He explained, “When the complaint does not contain allegations of ‘sexual harassment’ as defined under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, 2013, the jurisdictional fact required to take cognizance and issue notice is lacking. Consequently, the complaint cannot be proceeded with under the provisions of the POSH Act.”
Referring to the legal definition of sexual harassment under the POSH Act, the court observed that the complaint in question lacked allegations of “physical contact and advances, a demand or request for sexual favors, making sexually colored remarks, showing pornography, or any other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” The court further clarified that even if the complainant’s version of events was taken as true, the allegations primarily focused on the petitioner using abusive language and insulting the complainant and other employees, rather than on any form of sexual harassment.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by an office bearer of a political party against the Manager of a Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (KSFE) branch. The complainant, who was not an employee of KSFE, alleged that when she and other party members entered the manager’s cabin to discuss the issuance of a memo to eight female employees, the manager recorded a video of her and verbally abused her. The ICC issued a notice to the manager based on this complaint. In response, the manager contested the notice, arguing that the complaint lacked any allegations of sexual harassment and that the ICC had no jurisdiction over the matter. He maintained that the complaint only described a confrontation over work-related issues and did not involve any misconduct of a sexual nature.
The court also noted that the complainant was not an employee of the KSFE branch and had entered the petitioner’s office without permission. The court found that the allegations did not meet the threshold for sexual harassment, as the complaint did not involve any unwelcome sexual conduct as defined by the POSH Act.
Ultimately, the Kerala High Court allowed the petition, ruling that the ICC’s notice was issued without jurisdiction. As a result, the notice was quashed.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates K. M. Sathyanatha Menon, Ayisha, Anjali, Nirmal Das P.
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Gopikrishnan Nambiar A. M., Salil Narayanan K. A., K. S. Arun Kumar, K. John Mathai, Jonson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, Amrutha K. P., K. Bincymol
Case No: WP(C) 24867 of 2024
Case Title: Hareesh M. S. v. The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and Others
