The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the statutory obligation of employers to constitute an impartial Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and to resolve complaints within a strict timeline. This order underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring procedural compliance and timely redressal in workplace harassment cases, setting a clear precedent for institutional accountability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Etalee Malakar, alleged sustained sexual harassment by colleagues and superiors at M.G.M. Medical College, Indore, a public institution under Respondent No. 3. She submitted multiple written complaints detailing incidents of verbal abuse, inappropriate advances, and hostile work environment, but no formal inquiry or disciplinary action was initiated by the institution or any of the other respondents.
Key Facts
- The petitioner filed complaints on the following dates: 20.01.2026, 10.02.2026, 16.02.2026, 05.03.2026, 12.03.2026, and 16.03.2026 (Annexure P/10)
- The complaint dated 16.03.2026 contained detailed allegations, documentary evidence, and written admissions from witnesses
- The petitioner raised concerns regarding the absence of a functioning Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) at M.G.M. Medical College
- Despite repeated representations, no committee was constituted, and no inquiry was initiated
- The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking mandamus to compel action
Procedural History
- 20.01.2026: First formal complaint submitted to institutional authorities
- 10.02.2026: Second representation, highlighting non-response
- 16.02.2026: Third complaint, including references to Section 9 of the POSH Act
- 05.03.2026: Fourth representation, requesting constitution of ICC
- 12.03.2026: Fifth complaint, citing failure to comply with statutory obligations
- 16.03.2026: Sixth and final complaint, annexed as P/10, detailing evidence and demanding immediate action
- 12.05.2026: Writ Petition No. 13002 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The petitioner’s counsel, Dr. Hemnarayan Giri, argued that the failure to constitute an ICC and to act on complaints violated Section 4 and Section 9 of the POSH Act, 2013, which mandate the establishment of an ICC and the duty to inquire into complaints. He emphasized that the institution, as a public employer, was under a non-delegable statutory duty to ensure a safe workplace.
For the Respondent/State: The Government Advocate, Shri Pradyumna Kibe, conceded that an ICC had not yet been constituted but stated that the institution was in the process of doing so. He assured the Court that the complaint dated 16.03.2026 would be addressed expeditiously.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- A writ of mandamus directing the constitution of an independent, impartial, and law-compliant ICC
- A direction to decide all pending complaints within a fixed timeframe
- A directive to police authorities to investigate if the allegations disclosed cognizable offences
- Any other relief deemed appropriate
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the failure to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and the inaction on repeated complaints, constitutes a violation of statutory duty enforceable by writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India to establish that the right to a safe workplace is an integral part of Article 21. He argued that Section 4 of the POSH Act imposes a mandatory obligation on every employer to constitute an ICC within 100 days of the Act’s applicability. The failure to do so, he submitted, renders the institution in breach of statutory duty. He further cited Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana to assert that delay in inquiry amounts to denial of justice and violates principles of natural justice.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not dispute the statutory obligation but claimed procedural delays due to administrative processes. It submitted that the institution was in the process of constituting the ICC and that the complaint would be decided soon. However, it offered no concrete timeline or evidence of steps taken.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the POSH Act, 2013, is not merely a procedural statute but a substantive safeguard for women’s dignity and right to equality under Article 14 and Article 15. The Court emphasized that the obligation to constitute an ICC is not discretionary but mandatory, and failure to comply amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.
"The existence of a statutory mechanism for redressal is meaningless if it remains dormant due to institutional apathy. The petitioner has not been granted even the basic procedural right to be heard."
The Court rejected the State’s vague assurances and held that the petitioner’s repeated representations over five months demonstrated a pattern of neglect. It noted that the institution, being a public medical college, falls squarely within the ambit of the Act as an employer. The Court further held that the complaint dated 16.03.2026, being the most comprehensive and documented, must be adjudicated with urgency.
The Court declined to express any opinion on the merits of the allegations but stressed that procedural compliance is non-negotiable. It directed that if the ICC was not constituted, it must be done within 30 days, and the inquiry must conclude within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The Internal Complaints Committee must be constituted by Respondent No. 3 within 30 days of receipt of the certified copy of this order
- The inquiry into the complaint dated 16.03.2026 must be concluded within three months from the date of constitution of the ICC, or from the date of receipt of the certified copy if already constituted
- The committee must afford a full opportunity of hearing to both parties and base its findings on the evidence submitted, including written admissions and documents
- The institution shall submit a compliance report to the Court within 15 days of completing the inquiry
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Employers, including public institutions, cannot delay or avoid constituting an ICC under the POSH Act, 2013
- Failure to constitute an ICC within the statutory timeframe renders the employer liable for contempt of court and violation of fundamental rights
- Petitioners may now invoke Article 226 with greater confidence where institutional inaction persists
Time-Bound Inquiry Is a Legal Right
- The Court has established a binding timeline: 30 days for constitution, 3 months for inquiry
- Practitioners should cite this order when opposing adjournments or delays in ICC proceedings
- Any extension beyond the 3-month period must be justified with compelling reasons and approved by the High Court
Documentation Trumps Oral Assurances
- Repeated written complaints, especially with annexures, create a clear record of institutional neglect
- Courts will not accept vague promises of "expeditious action" without concrete timelines
- Legal notices and representations must be systematically preserved as evidence of non-compliance
