SC orders mandatory ICC for sexual harassment in all govt depts

New Delhi: To ensure nationwide compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed all states and union territories to constitute an internal complaints committee in all government departments and undertakings.

The top court, therefore, directed the states and UTs to appoint an officer in each district by December 31, 2024, who would constitute a local complaints committee by January 31, 2025, and appoint nodal officers at taluka levels.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh issued several directions, including that the POSH Act must be uniformly implemented nationwide, reported PTI.

The apex court directed the deputy commissioners/district magistrates to survey the public and private organisations for ICC compliance under Section 26 of the POSH Act and submit reports.  

They would engage with private sector stakeholders to ensure the ICC constitution and adherence to statutory provisions, it said.

The bench granted time till March 31, 2025, for the compliance of its directions and directed chief secretaries to oversee the execution.

The direction came on a petition dealing with the implementation of the court's May 2023 order directing the Centre and the state governments to undertake a time-bound exercise to verify whether panels to probe sexual harassment allegations at the workplace were constituted in all ministries and departments.

The top court said it was "disquieting" to note "serious lapses" in the enforcement of the 2013 Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act despite such a long time. 

Calling it a "sorry state of affairs", the apex court said it reflected poorly on all the state functionaries, public authorities and private undertakings.

The court direction came on a plea filed by a former head of department at Goa University, Aureliano Fernandes, who challenged an order of the Bombay High Court over allegations of sexual harassment against him.

The high court rejected his plea against an order of the executive council of Goa University (disciplinary authority) which dismissed him from services and disqualified him from future employment.

The top court set aside the high court order, noting procedural lapses in inquiry proceedings and violation of the principles of natural justice.