Bombay High Court: Writ Against ICC Under POSH Act Not Maintainable When Appellate Remedy Exists

Headnote:

The Bombay High Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the POSH Act, 2013, is not maintainable when a statutory appellate remedy exists under Section 18 of the Act. The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be invoked against private entities unless their actions involve a public law element or statutory duty.

Background:

• The petitioner, a pilot employed by Akasa Air, challenged the findings of the ICC that held him guilty of sexual harassment against a trainee pilot under the POSH Act, 2013.

• The petitioner alleged that the ICC proceedings violated principles of natural justice—claiming he was denied cross-examination, adequate opportunity to defend, and a personal hearing.

• The respondent airline argued that the writ was not maintainable since Akasa Air is a private employer and the petitioner had an effective statutory appeal remedy under Section 18 of the POSH Act before the appellate authority.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court reaffirmed that Article 226 confers wide powers but is primarily intended to enforce public law duties; private disputes without public character do not fall within its ambit.

• An Internal Complaints Committee of a private organization, though statutory in origin, functions within the employer’s internal framework and is not a quasi-judicial body subject to writ oversight in routine disciplinary matters.

• The petitioner had an adequate alternate remedy under Section 18 of the POSH Act, and no exceptional circumstances—such as lack of jurisdiction or violation of fundamental natural justice principles—were shown to justify bypassing that remedy.

• The Court observed that procedural irregularities alleged by the petitioner could be appropriately raised before the appellate authority, and thus, writ jurisdiction was unwarranted.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 18, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Appeal.

• Article 226, Constitution of India – Power of High Courts to issue writs.

• Principles of Natural Justice – Right to fair hearing and cross-examination.

Outcome:

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, affirming that internal inquiries under the POSH Act within private entities must first be challenged through the prescribed statutory appeal mechanism.

Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:46643

Case: ABC & Ors. v. Internal Complaints Committee, Akasa Air & Ors.

Court: High Court of Bombay

Date of Decision: 3 November 2025

Writ Petition (St.) No.: 15574 of 2025