The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has held that a person against whom a false sexual harassment complaint is made is a “person aggrieved” under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) if the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)’s recommendation contains an adverse or erroneous conclusion affecting him, and such person has a statutory right of appeal even without proving separate direct injury.
The Court explained that where the ICC relies upon a retraction statement to close proceedings, it cannot selectively accept that statement for one purpose and omit the expressly named source of instigation by describing it as an “unknown source”; as such omission is liable to be corrected in writ jurisdiction.
The Court also held that Section 14 of the POSH Act does not permit action against a person who merely instigated the making of a false complaint, because the provision is confined to the aggrieved woman or the person who made the complaint under Section 9, and to witnesses giving false evidence or producing forged or misleading documents.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed that the ICC clearly erred in recording that the complainant had been instigated by an “unknown source” when the retraction letter and statement expressly named respondent no. 3 as the person who had threatened and instigated her. Having relied upon the retraction letter to close the complaint, the ICC could not selectively omit the name of the alleged instigator from its conclusion.
The Bench held that this omission itself gave the petitioner a cause of action and made him a “person aggrieved” entitled to file an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act. It was not necessary for him to show a separate or direct injury beyond being aggrieved by the recommendation recorded by the ICC. The Tribunal therefore committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable on that ground.
At the same time, the Bench accepted that no substantive inquiry had been conducted to establish malicious intent of respondent no. 3 and therefore the petitioner’s prayers seeking action against respondent no. 3 under Section 14 of the POSH Act and disciplinary proceedings were premature and untenable. The Bench noted that Section 14 applies only to the aggrieved woman or the person making the complaint under Section 9, and not to a person alleged to have instigated the complaint.
Accordingly, instead of remanding the matter, the High Court exercised its powers under Article 227, quashed the Tribunal’s order, and directed that the ICC’s conclusion be modified to state that respondent no. 3 instigated respondent no. 4 to file a false sexual harassment case against the petitioner. The petitioner was left at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against respondent no. 3 before the appropriate forum, if permissible in law.
Briefly, the petitioner, a permanent Government servant working as a Lower Division Clerk, challenged the order dated November 26, 2025 of the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Goa, which had dismissed his appeal as not maintainable under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The dispute arose from a complaint dated November 29, 2024 made by respondent no. 4 alleging harassment by the petitioner, followed by her later retraction stating that the complaint had been pre-prepared by respondent no. 3, the Principal, and that she was threatened into signing it.
An Internal Complaints Committee was constituted on the complaint. During the preliminary inquiry, respondent no. 4 stated that the petitioner had neither sexually harassed her nor troubled her on account of disability, and that respondent no. 3 had prepared the complaint and forced her to sign it. On January 6, 2025, she withdrew all allegations and affirmed that the complaint was false.
Despite the retraction specifically naming respondent no. 3, the ICC, in its inquiry report dated January 10, 2025, concluded that the complaint had been instigated by an “unknown source” and recommended closure of the matter as a malicious complaint, while waiving penalties against the complainant. The petitioner appealed on the ground that the ICC had wrongly omitted respondent no. 3’s name and had failed to act in terms of Section 14 of the POSH Act.
Appearances:
Advocate Shivraj Gaonkar, for the Petitioner
Advocate Rishikesh Gawas, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Advocate Annelise Fernandes, for the Respondent No. 3
