By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
Introduction
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) was enacted in India to protect women from sexual harassment at the workplace and to ensure a safe and dignified working environment. The law is clearly women‑oriented and aims to promote confidence, security, and equality for women in professional spaces.
At the same time, the POSH Act is not meant to be used as a tool for victimising innocent employees. Keeping this in mind, the legislature included Section 14, which allows action to be taken against a complainant or witness if a complaint is found to be false or malicious, subject to proper inquiry. This shows that while the Act strongly protects women, it also recognises the need to prevent misuse.
However, an important and unresolved legal question remains:
What happens in cases where a false or malicious complaint is not made independently by the complainant, but is instead instigated or forced by a third party?
The POSH Act does not clearly deal with such situations. While it provides consequences for a false complaint, it is silent on whether — and how — a person who instigates such a complaint can be held accountable under the Act.
This nuanced situation came under judicial scrutiny before the Bombay High Court at Goa[1], giving rise to significant questions on:
- the scope of appellate remedies under Section 18 of the POSH Act,
- the duties, responsibilities, and limitations of Internal Committees, and
- most importantly, whether a person who instigates a false sexual harassment complaint can be proceeded against under the POSH law.
The judgment is important because it strikes a careful balance. While it reaffirms the protective and welfare‑oriented nature of the POSH Act, it also ensures fairness to the accused employee. The Court made it clear that ICs cannot selectively rely on evidence or shield a clearly identified instigator by describing them as an “unknown source.” At the same time, it clarified the legal limits of punishment under the POSH Act itself.
Overall, the decision highlights that protecting women and ensuring procedural fairness are not conflicting goals. Instead, both are essential to maintaining the credibility and integrity of the POSH framework.
Background
The dispute originated from a sexual harassment complaint filed by Respondent No. 3 (Complainant) in November 29, 2024 against the Petitioner, a permanent Government servant working as a Lower Division Clerk.
The allegations included:
- That the Petitioner was harassing her on the basis of her disability
- That the Petitioner did not cooperate with her and frequently passed discriminatory comments such as ‘go to hell’ and other such remarks[2]
- That the Petitioner frequently stared at her in an unpleasant and unprofessional manner and also behaved in an aggressive and abnormal way.
Pursuant to the complaint, an Internal Committee (IC) was constituted to inquire into the said matter.
The Petitioner filed his reply dated January 02, 2025 denying the allegations made against him and raised a suspicion that the complaint was made on an instigation of a third person. [3]
A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the IC, wherein the Complainant made the following admissions:
- That her complaint was not prepared by her
- Thet she was unaware of the contents of the said complaint
- That the Petitioner had neither sexually harassed her nor troubled her on the basis of her disability
- Most importantly, she clearly stated the complaint was prepared by the Respondent No. 3 i.e., the Principal of the Institute and she was threatened to sign the same with consequences, if she refused.
These assertions were reiterated in a detailed retraction letter submitted to the IC dated 6 January 2025 wherein she withdrew all the charges of sexual harassment against the Petitioner and confirmed that she was not under any pressure to withdraw her complaint.
Findings of the IC
Relying on the retraction, the Inquiry Report dated January 10, 2025 was recommended to the Employer stating that the case was a false and malicious complaint.
However, despite the Complainant having explicitly named the Principal as the instigator, the IC recorded in its report that the some ‘unknown source’ had influenced the Complainant to file the sexual harassment complaint against him as she was intellectually disabled person. Thus, the inquiry was closed and the penalties for the Complainant under the POSH Act were waived.
This selective omission — acceptance of the retraction but erasure of the named instigator — formed the crux of the Petitioner’s challenge.
Appeal before the Industrial Tribunal
Invoking Section 18 of the POSH Act, the Petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Government of Goa, contending that:
- The IC overlooked the mandate of Section 14 of the POSH Act and closed the proceedings without recommending any action against Respondent No. 3 i.e., the Principal
- The IC failed to discharge its statutory duty to recommend action against Respondent No. 3 to the Employer for threatening the Complainant and instigating her in making the false complaint
- The IC erred in concluding that the perpetrator was ‘unknown’ when in fact, the Complainant had clearly named the Principal, who instigated her to make a false complaint and
- The IC was protecting the Principal for reasons best known to it.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as ‘non-maintainable’, holding that the Petitioner was not affected by the conclusion of the IC directly and that there was no actual injury conducted to verify the statement of the Complainant, as to whether she was instigated and forced to complain against him by the Principal.
The Tribunal held that the Complainant herself is a grown-up person employed and no action can be initiated against the Principal under Section 14 of the POSH Act, without ascertaining the veracity of her statement.
The Tribunal further observed that considering the retraction statement of the Complainant, she cannot be considered to be a truthful witness to launch prosecution against the Principal. The Tribunal also agreed with the contention of the Principal that the POSH Act being a special Act, enacted to protect against Sexual Harassment at Workplace and for matters connected thereto, the same cannot be a forum to settle the score of one employee against another or against a Superior. Since no direct injury was caused to the Petitioner and neither could he show that it was the Principal, who with malicious intent instigated the Complainant to file a false complaint, her mere retraction statement cannot be the basis for the Tribunal to intervene in the findings/report of the IC. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
It was this order of dismissal which has been assailed by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa. [4]
Issues before the High Court and its Key Findings
The High Court considered, inter alia:
- Whether the Petitioner qualified as a “person aggrieved” entitled to appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act?
- Whether the IC committed a legal or jurisdictional error by recording the instigator as ‘unknown source’?
- Whether disciplinary action could be directed against the Principal under Section 14 of the POSH Act?
Right to Appeal
The Court unequivocally held that the Petitioner is clearly a person aggrieved by the recommendations made by the IC and has a statutory right to prefer an appeal in the manner prescribed under the POSH Act. It is not necessary for the Petitioner or a person aggrieved by the IC’s recommendation to show any direct injury caused to him.
The Tribunal’s insistence on proof of direct injury was therefore misplaced and contrary to the statutory scheme.
IC’s Duty of Consistency and Transparency
Hon’ble Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale found the IC’s approach fundamentally flawed. Once the IC relied on the Complainant’s retraction to close the case, it could not selectively suppress the portion of the retraction that identified the instigator.[5]
“Having noted the contents of the retraction letter, the IC clearly failed in the discharge of its duties to specify that the complaint was being closed on account of false allegations made against the Petitioner, at the behest of the instigator”, the court observed.
It further held:
“The IC cannot selectively omit to name the source of instigation, when he is named in the same retraction letter.”
Limits of Section 14 of the POSH Act
At the same time, the Court drew a clear statutory boundary. It held that Section 14, which deals with punishment for false or malicious complaints, which applies only to:
- the aggrieved woman, or
- the person who makes the complaint under Section 9.
Since in the present case, the Respondent No. 3 was neither the aggrieved woman nor a person making the complaint. He was dragged in the proceedings, pursuant to the retraction statement of the Complainant.
It was the Complainant who is the author of the complaint. It may be that she was threatened with dire consequences of future harassment that propelled her to make the false complaint against the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner may be within his rights in seeking action against the Complainant. However, his prayer to direct disciplinary action against the Principal under the POSH Act is misplaced and hence, rejected.
However, the Court expressly preserved the Petitioner’s liberty to pursue other remedies in accordance with law before an appropriate forum, after affording Respondent No. 3 i.e., the Principal an opportunity of hearing.
Judgment
Invoking its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court:
- set aside the Industrial Tribunal’s order dated November 26, 2025, and
- corrected the IC’s findings directly, instead of remanding the matter.
The IC’s conclusion was modified to read:
“The Respondent No. 3 (i.e., the Principal) instigated the Respondent No. 4 (i.e., the Complainant) to file a false sexual harassment case against the Petitioner.”
Conclusion
This decision is a significant reaffirmation of procedural fairness in POSH proceedings. While the Court declined to stretch Section 14 to cover third party instigators, it firmly rejected attempts by ICs to sanitize the record by anonymising a clearly identified wrongdoer.
This judgment is notable for several reasons:
- Affirms appellate rights of falsely accused employees under the POSH framework
- Reinforces that ICs must act with procedural consistency and transparency
- Clarifies that POSH is not a catch-all punitive statute for every workplace wrong
- Draws a clear statutory boundary between false complaints and third-party instigation
- Demonstrates judicious use of Article 227 to avoid unnecessary remands
[2] https://ssrana.in/posh-law/articles/calling-women-offensive-names-is-workplace-misconduct/
[4] Writ Petition No. 15 of 2026 in the High Court of Bombay at Goa
[5] https://ssrana.in/posh-law/articles/can-procedural-issues-derail-the-posh-complaint/