Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Private Airline's Internal Complaints Committee

Court rules that procedural violations in sexual harassment inquiry do not warrant writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies are available

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a pilot against an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of a private airline, asserting that procedural violations in a sexual harassment inquiry do not justify the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternate statutory remedy is available. The judgment was delivered by Justice N.J. Jamadar, who emphasized the limitations of writ petitions against private entities unless public duty or public law elements are involved.

The petitioner, a captain employed by the airline, challenged the ICC's final report dated February 12, 2025, alleging procedural violations, including the denial of cross-examination and oral hearings. The ICC had conducted an inquiry into a complaint lodged by a trainee captain, who accused the petitioner of causing discomfort and undermining the professional learning environment. The ICC's recommendations included a final warning, mandatory refresher training, and temporary revocation of certain employee benefits.

The High Court underscored that the ICC and the airline do not qualify as 'State' or 'instrumentality of State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, writ jurisdiction is not maintainable unless the entity is performing a public function or duty involving a public law element. The court noted that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) provides an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal, which the petitioner failed to utilize.

Justice Jamadar highlighted that the inquiry conducted by the ICC is fact-finding in nature and not bound by strict procedural rules or evidence, and procedural irregularities such as denial of cross-examination do not automatically vitiate the inquiry unless substantial prejudice is demonstrated. The petitioner was advised to seek redress through the appellate authority under Section 18 of the POSH Act, which offers a structured mechanism to address grievances related to inquiries conducted by ICCs.

Legal experts have noted the ruling's reinforcement of the principle that writ jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly, particularly when legislative frameworks provide adequate remedies. The judgment is expected to influence future cases involving procedural challenges in sexual harassment inquiries within private entities.

Bottom Line:

Sexual Harassment Inquiry - Maintainability of writ petition against private entities and procedural violations by Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) - Held, writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against ICC and employer as private entities unless public duty or public law element is involved - Procedural violations like denial of cross-examination and oral hearing do not warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction when alternate statutory remedy under Section 18 of POSH Act is available.

Statutory provision(s): Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Sections 11 and 18

ABC v. Internal Complaints Committee, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2803688