Access To Justice In Uniform: Supreme Court Holds AFT Can Hear POSH Appeals Against ICC Reports

Introduction

In a landmark ruling strengthening procedural safeguards for members of the armed forces, the Supreme Court has held that findings and recommendations of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act can be appealed before the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The judgment brings clarity to the interplay between the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, resolving an important question on appellate remedies available to defence personnel.

The ruling was delivered in 42605-B Cdr Yogesh Mahla v. Union of India & Ors., reported on Lexibal, by a Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Factual Background

The case arose from a complaint of sexual harassment filed against a naval officer. In accordance with the POSH Act, an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted to inquire into the allegations. Upon completion of the inquiry, the ICC submitted a report recommending disciplinary action against the appellant.

Acting on the ICC’s recommendations, the naval authorities issued a show cause notice dated March 5, 2025, proposing termination of the appellant’s services under Regulation 216 of the Navy Regulations read with Section 15(2) of the Navy Act, 1957.

Challenging both the ICC proceedings and the consequential show cause notice, the appellant approached the Armed Forces Tribunal by filing an Original Application seeking quashing of the ICC report and all actions taken pursuant thereto.

Tribunal And High Court’s Findings

The Armed Forces Tribunal, by an order dated May 30, 2025, declined to interfere. The Tribunal held that it would be inappropriate to intervene at the stage of a show cause notice and observed that the appellant should first submit his explanation before the disciplinary authority.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the writ petition on July 10, 2025. The High Court went a step further and held that Section 18 of the POSH Act did not confer any right of appeal to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal against ICC findings.

This interpretation effectively denied the appellant any forum to challenge the ICC report prior to the culmination of disciplinary proceedings, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Core Legal Issue

The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether Section 18 of the POSH Act permits an appeal against ICC findings before the Armed Forces Tribunal, particularly when service rules governing armed forces personnel provide for adjudication of service disputes by the AFT.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation Of Section 18 POSH Act

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Delhi High Court had committed a manifest error in denying the appellant the statutory right of appeal.

Justice Nagarathna, writing for the Bench, observed that Section 18 of the POSH Act expressly provides a right to appeal against the recommendations of the ICC before a “court or tribunal” in accordance with service rules. When read together with Section 14 of the AFT Act, 2007, it becomes clear that the AFT is the appropriate forum for armed forces personnel.

The Court categorically held:

“Section 14 of the AFT Act, 2007 when read in juxtaposition with Section 18 of the POSH Act, we find that the appellant herein had rightly approached the Tribunal so as to assail the report as well as the recommendations of the ICC.”

Thus, the expression “court or tribunal” under the POSH Act was interpreted broadly to include specialised service tribunals such as the AFT.

Error In Treating The Challenge As Premature

The Supreme Court also disagreed with the AFT’s view that it could not interfere at the show cause notice stage. The Court noted that the appellant was challenging the very basis of the disciplinary action, namely the ICC report itself.

Since Section 18 allows an appeal against the recommendations of the ICC, the Tribunal was duty-bound to examine the correctness and legality of the ICC findings, rather than postponing judicial scrutiny until final disciplinary action was taken.

The Court observed that the Tribunal failed to adjudicate the matter in the manner required under Section 18 of the POSH Act, thereby warranting interference.

Final Directions

In light of the above, the Supreme Court:

Set aside the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the Delhi High Court
Held that the appellant had a valid statutory right of appeal
Remanded the matter back to the AFT
Directed the Tribunal to consider the Original Application as an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act

The appeal was accordingly allowed.

Broader Implications Of The Judgment

Strengthening Access To Justice

The ruling ensures that armed forces personnel are not left without an effective appellate forum against ICC findings, thereby reinforcing procedural fairness and access to justice.

Harmonising POSH Act With Service Law

The judgment harmonises the objectives of the POSH Act with the specialised service law regime applicable to the armed forces, ensuring that neither operates in isolation.

Preventing Mechanical Disciplinary Action

By allowing ICC findings to be judicially reviewed, the decision acts as a safeguard against mechanical or uncritical adoption of ICC recommendations by disciplinary authorities.

Precedential Value

The ruling will serve as an important precedent for cases involving POSH complaints within uniformed services, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Cdr Yogesh Mahla v. Union of India marks a crucial development in POSH jurisprudence as applied to the armed forces. By recognising the Armed Forces Tribunal as a valid appellate forum under Section 18 of the POSH Act, the Court has reaffirmed that statutory protections and remedies must extend meaningfully to all workplaces, including disciplined services.

The judgment strikes a careful balance between the need to address workplace sexual harassment and the equally important requirement of ensuring fair and lawful disciplinary processes. It is a significant step towards ensuring that justice in uniform remains both accessible and accountable.