In a significant move to ensure the effective implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed all States and Union Territories (UTs) to establish internal complaints committees (ICCs) in all government departments and public undertakings.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh emphasized that the POSH Act must be uniformly enforced across the country. To this end, the court issued a series of directives aimed at improving compliance:
District-Level Oversight: States and UTs must appoint an officer in each district by December 31, 2024, who will be responsible for forming a local complaints committee (LCC) by January 31, 2025.
Nodal Officers at Taluka Level: Nodal officers must be appointed at the taluka level to monitor and support POSH compliance.
Survey and Compliance Reports: Deputy commissioners and district magistrates have been instructed to survey both public and private organizations to ensure ICCs are in place, as required under Section 26 of the POSH Act. They must submit compliance reports and engage with private sector stakeholders to guarantee adherence to statutory provisions.
Chief Secretaries of all States and UTs have been tasked with overseeing the execution of these directions. The court set March 31, 2025, as the deadline for full compliance.
Serious Lapses” in Enforcement
The Supreme Court’s order came in response to a petition highlighting delays in implementing its May 2023 directive, which required the Centre and state governments to verify the constitution of ICCs in all ministries and departments.
The court expressed concern over the slow enforcement of the POSH Act, calling it a *”sorry state of affairs”* that reflects poorly on both public and private institutions. The bench noted “serious lapses” in ensuring compliance, despite the Act being in place for over a decade.
Case Background
The directives were issued while hearing a plea filed by former Goa University department head Aureliano Fernandes, who challenged a Bombay High Court order upholding his dismissal over sexual harassment allegations.
The high court had rejected Fernandes’ plea against the university’s disciplinary action, which not only terminated his services but also disqualified him from future employment.
However, the Supreme Court set aside the high court’s order, citing procedural lapses in the inquiry and a violation of the principles of natural justice.
This judgment underscores the need for strict adherence to due process and the importance of safeguarding the rights of all parties involved in sexual harassment cases.
