Sexual harassment allegations are highly sensitive, and victims may sometimes hesitate to file formal complaints. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) primarily envisions a complaint from the aggrieved woman. However, the case of Abraham Mathai vs State Of Kerala highlighted complexities arising when an inquiry is initiated based on an anonymous complaint. This article examines the Kerala High Court’s judgment delivered on December 3, 2024, and its stance on whether a written complaint from the aggrieved woman is mandatory for a Local Committee (LC) to commence an inquiry under the POSH Act—especially in cases originating from anonymous sources.
Abraham Mathai v. State of Kerala: Case Background and Analysis of Anonymous Complaint
Abraham Mathai, the petitioner and accused in the case, served as the managing director of the company where the woman (“Victim”) was employed. In 2017, Victim's employment was terminated due to alleged dereliction of duty, prompting her to contest the dismissal before the Labour Court.
Meanwhile, the District Collector (DC) received an anonymous complaint, which was forwarded to the Local Committee for investigation. Notably, this complaint lacked specific averments constituting sexual harassment under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act. Despite this, the LC proceeded with an inquiry.
During the investigation, the Victim categorically denied making the anonymous complaint. However, she made certain oral allegations before the LC, asserting that the Accused was spreading lewd and lascivious remarks about himself in the name of Victim. Crucially, Victim clarified that the Accused never touched her or requested sexual favours but had created a hostile work environment that ultimately led to the denial of her salary and termination of employment.
Following the inquiry, the LC submitted a report to the DC with the following recommendations:
The Accused should issue a formal written apology to the Victim for personal and professional harm caused by his behaviour.
The Accused should compensate the Victim with INR 19.8 Lakhs within 90 days as per the POSH Act for the alleged sexual harassment and reputational damage.
In 2018, the DC issued a directive to the Accused, instructing compliance with the LC’s recommendations. Aggrieved by this directive, the Accused approached the Kerala High Court, seeking to quash both the LC’s recommendations and the DC’s letter.
The Core Question: Necessity of a Written Complaint Under the POSH Act
The crux of the matter before the Kerala High Court was whether the LC was justified in conducting an inquiry and issuing recommendations based solely on an anonymous complaint, particularly when the alleged victim herself denied making the complaint and had already pursued her employment-related grievances through other channels, such as the Labour Court and the police. This raised questions about the validity of initiating an inquiry without a formal complaint and the extent to which the LLC should consider allegations beyond the scope of sexual harassment as defined under the POSH Act.
Statutory Provisions and the Court's Analysis
The court meticulously analysed the relevant provisions of the POSH Act to determine the legality of the inquiry conducted in the absence of a written complaint from the victim.
The Mandatory Requirement of a Written Complaint:
The court undertook a significant analysis of Section 9 of the POSH Act and the related rules, concluding that a written complaint from the aggrieved woman is generally mandatory for initiating an inquiry under Section 11. The court noted the exceptions provided in Section 9 for situations where a woman cannot make a written complaint, but reasoned that in this case, since the victim had filed complaints with other authorities (Police, Women's Commission, Labour Court), she was capable of submitting a written complaint to the Local Committee. Therefore, the anonymous complaint and the oral allegations made during the inquiry could not substitute the necessity of a written complaint, rendering the inquiry illegal.
The Strict Interpretation of the Definition of Sexual Harassment:
The court analysed Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, which defines sexual harassment. Despite the victim's allegations of a hostile work environment created by the petitioner, including spreading lewd remarks in her name, The court highlighted the victim's own admission that the petitioner never touched her or asked for sexual favours. Based on this, the court concluded that while the petitioner's behaviour might have created a circumstance mentioned in Section 3 of the POSH Act (a hostile work environment), it did not fall within the specific definition of "sexual harassment" under Section 2(n). This distinction was crucial in the court's determination that the Local Committee lacked the jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry under Section 11 in this specific context.
The Violation of the Principles of Natural Justice:
The court analysed the inquiry process conducted by the Local Committee and found it to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the evidence from the victim and witnesses was recorded through telephone conversations and not in the presence of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and the witnesses, which the court, relying on precedents, deemed a fundamental requirement for a fair inquiry under Rule 7(4) of the POSH Rules. This procedural flaw was a significant factor in the court's decision to quash the Local Committee's report.
Based on these provisions, the Kerala High Court observed that the victim had not filed a written complaint. The inquiry was triggered by an anonymous complaint, which the victim denied making. While she made some oral allegations during the inquiry, the court argued that since she had already filed complaints with other authorities, she was capable of making a written complaint to the LC. Therefore, her oral allegations could not substitute the mandatory written complaint, making the inquiry illegal. The court also relied on several judicial precedents to support its stance:
Prasad Pannian (Dr.) v. Central University of Kerala: This case held that while an oral complaint is permissible under certain circumstances, a complaint (whether written or oral) is mandatory for initiating an inquiry.
Geeta Meena v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and others: This case emphasised that the complaint must be filed within the stipulated timeframe.
Girishkumar Rameshchandra Soni v. State of Gujarat: This case held that a written complaint from the aggrieved woman or a person authorised by the POSH Act is necessary for the committee to commence an inquiry.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court's Emphasis on Written Complaints
In Abraham Mathai vs State Of Kerala, the Kerala High Court firmly reaffirmed the necessity of a written complaint as a prerequisite for initiating an inquiry under Section 11 of the POSH Act. While recognising provisions that allow assistance for women unable to file written complaints, the court clarified that an inquiry by the LC is not legally valid unless a written complaint is submitted by the aggrieved woman or a valid justification exists for its absence.
Accordingly, the court quashed the LC’s report and the subsequent directive (Ext.P6) issued by the District Collector, except for the instruction to establish an Internal Complaints Committee. This ruling reinforces the procedural safeguards under the POSH Act and highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring strict adherence to statutory requirements.
Comments