Gujarat High Court Upholds Statutory Appeal Mechanism Under Section 18 of the POSH Act

Case Name: Redacted v. Redacted (Special Civil Application No. 3285 of 2026)

Factual Background

An employee of a private organisation approached the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the findings and recommendations of the Internal Committee (IC) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The petitioner alleged that she had been subjected to unwelcome physical conduct and harassment by a senior official and questioned the fairness of the IC inquiry. She contended that the IC was improperly constituted because most of its members were subordinate to the senior official against whom allegations had been made, creating a reasonable apprehension of bias. She further alleged that the Committee had misinterpreted the definition of sexual harassment under the POSH Act, selectively appreciated the evidence, relied upon unverified materials, ignored medical evidence and failed to consider that the alleged conduct had created a hostile and intimidating work environment. She also challenged the consequential disciplinary action taken against her following the IC’s report.

The respondents objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the employer was not “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act read with Rule 11 of the POSH Rules before the notified appellate authority.

Court’s Analysis

The High Court held that the primary issue before it was whether it should exercise its writ jurisdiction when the POSH Act provides a statutory appellate mechanism against the recommendations of an IC. The Court observed that Section 18 of the POSH Act confers a right of appeal and that, where applicable service rules do not provide an appellate forum, Rule 11 of the POSH Rules prescribes the appellate authority notified under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The Court concluded that the petitioner ought to have exhausted this statutory remedy before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

On the merits, the Court found no procedural irregularity warranting judicial interference. It observed that the IC had afforded both parties an opportunity to present their respective cases, examined documentary and electronic evidence, considered witness statements and prepared a reasoned report. The Court reiterated that judicial review is confined to examining the legality of the decision-making process and not reassessing the factual findings of the IC as an appellate body. Unless the findings are shown to be arbitrary, perverse, mala fide or in violation of principles of natural justice, the High Court would not substitute its own conclusions for those of the statutory committee. The Court also rejected the allegation that the inquiry was vitiated by bias, holding that no material had been produced to demonstrate actual prejudice or violation of natural justice during the proceedings.

Order of the Court

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy under Section 18 of the POSH Act and that no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing that remedy. The Court found no illegality, perversity, arbitrariness or violation of natural justice in the IC’s inquiry or its recommendations. However, it clarified that its observations would not influence any criminal proceedings arising from the incident and expressly reserved liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the competent appellate authority, which was directed to decide the appeal independently in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa