Supreme Court affirms appeal route under POSH Act

In a carefully reasoned judgment delivered on 3 November 2025, the Bombay High Court in ABC v. Internal Complaints Committee & Ors. (W.P. (ST) No. 15574 of 2025) sent a clear message about the central role of Internal Complaints Committees (“ICCs”) under the POSH Act and the limited room courts have to interfere with their findings. The case involved a senior pilot at Akasa Air who challenged an ICC report issued after a trainee pilot accused him of inappropriate and unprofessional conduct. The ICC, following a full inquiry, recommended a final written warning, a six-month bar on upgrades, and the suspension of certain staff-travel privileges. Unhappy with the outcome, the pilot approached the High Court alleging bias, procedural lapses, and denial of cross-examination.

The Court declined to intervene. It reiterated that writ jurisdiction is not meant to be a substitute for the statutory appealprovided under Section 18 of the POSH Act especially when the employer is a private entity. The POSH Act, the Court stressed, has its own internal appellate mechanism, and parties must use that route unless there is a glaring violation of natural justice or a fundamental procedural irregularity. Judicial review is reserved for exceptional situations, such as when the ICC is improperly formed or the finding is so unreasonable that it borders on perversity. None of those defects were present in this case.

On the issue of cross-examination, the Court offered an important clarification. The right to cross-examine is not absolute in POSH inquiries; what matters is whether the absence of cross-examination caused real, substantive prejudice. Here, the ICC had relied on written statements, exchanged written questions, allowed clarifications, and documented every stage of the inquiry. The petitioner could not demonstrate any way in which the lack of cross-examination had affected the final outcome. The Court also noted that a senior employee is held to a higher standard of conduct, and disagreement with the committee’s conclusions is not a ground for judicial interference.

For employers, this decision is particularly instructive. It reinforces that a well-run ICC with proper constitution orders, trained members, clear timelines, and thorough documentation is the strongest safeguard an organisation has in POSH matters. Courts are inclined to respect ICC reports when the inquiry reflects fairness, neutrality, adherence to timelines, confidentiality, and proper record-keeping. The judgment also underscores the importance of maintaining a functional appeal mechanism under the Act and ensuring that employees are informed about it from the outset.

Above all, the ruling reminds employers that POSH compliance cannot rest on written policies alone. It is about the operational strength of the system maintaining clear records, documenting reasons for accepting or denying procedural requests, and completing inquiries within statutory timelines. When these elements are in place, ICCs function as the quasi-judicial bodies the law intends them to be, and courts will refrain from second-guessing their decisions.

In simple terms, the Bombay High Court has affirmed what many organisations already know: if your ICC is well-constituted, well-trained, and well-documented, its findings will stand. Employers should treat this as an opportunity to review their POSH processes, refresh trainings, and ensure that inquiry procedures are not only compliant on paper but robust in practice.