Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 4179
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ
AURELIANO FERNANDES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GOA & ORS. – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Diary No.22553/2023 | C.A. No.2482/2014 | W.P.(C) No.1224/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Ms. Padma Priya, Advocate/Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR, Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv.
The court directed the implementation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, emphasizing compliance by States in constituting Complaints Committees and appointing Nodal Officers, while mandating ongoing monitoring and surveys for effectiveness.
Headnote:(A) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Sections 4 and 6 - Compliance Status - The court reviewed status reports from various States and Union Territories regarding the implementation of guidelines. The majority have appointed District Officers and established Local and Internal Complaints Committees, but concerns remained about clarity and completeness of compliance in States like Delhi, Haryana, Jharkhand, and Kerala. Acknowledgment of efforts to increase awareness through programs and surveys was noted. The court directed continued monitoring and compliance of the POSH Act by all States and UTs. (Paras 2-12)
(B) Direction for Compliance - The court urged States with unclear compliance to submit additional affidavits and clarified that comprehensive surveys about the constitution of Committees must be completed within a stipulated time. (Paras 5-6)
(C) Role of Nodal Officers - The appointment of Nodal Officers was emphasized as critical for compliance, particularly under Section 6(2) of the POSH Act. Concerns regarding the lack of clarity in appointments in several States/UTs were raised. (Paras 4-10)
(D) Acknowledgment of Efforts - The court appreciated ongoing efforts by the Amicus Curiae in monitoring compliance. (Paras 10-11) (E) Adjournment - The matter was adjourned to 12.08.2025, with instructions for further compliance checks and survey completion. (Paras 11-12)
ORDER
Pursuant to our previous orders dated 28.08.2023, 09.04.2024, 13.08.2024, 24.09.2024, 22.10.2024, 03.12.2024, 11.02.2025, 25.03.2025, 22.04.2025, 14.05.2025, the respective States and Union Territories have filed their affidavits indicating the compliances that have been made vis-a-vis the directions issued by us.
2. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted a Status Report with regard to the details of compliance of the orders dated 03.12.2024 and 22.04.2025 passed by this Court. Having regard to the detailed Status Report in respect of each of the States and Union Territories compiled by the learned Amicus Curiae by taking into consideration the affidavits filed by the States and Union Territories, we think it appropriate to annex the entire Status Report as an Annexure to this order and relevant portions are extracted as under:
“4. The Compliance Status by respective States may be summarized as follows on following parameters-
a. Appointment of District Officers- The said Direction has been complied by every State.
b. Local Complaint Committee- Most of the States have constituted the LCCs. However, the Affidavits of the following States reveal that while directions have been for the constitution of Local Complaints Committees (LCCs), however, the extent of actual compliance remains unclear-:
i. Delhi
ii. Haryana- Details not provided for 3 Districts (Jind, Karnal and Nuh)
iii. Jharkhand- State says LCCs have been constituted in 22 Districts. However, there are total 24 Districts.
iv. Kerala
c. Internal Complaint Committee- Most States have issued appropriate directions for the constitution and re-constitution of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs). States and Union Territories such as Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal have conducted, and continue to conduct, extensive surveys that include private institutions. Some States, including Bihar, Manipur, and Uttarakhand, have carried out surveys primarily in respect of government institutions.
However, concerns regarding the accuracy or completeness of the data have been noted in the remarks column corresponding to each of these States. Several other States have failed to furnish any information regarding the district-level survey, as directed by this Hon’ble Court on multiple occasions.
The States and Union Territories may be directed to conduct an extensive Survey as to the constitution of ICCs in all the Government and Private institutions within every district of the State in a time bound manner. The States and Union Territories may follow the format with regard to the Survey as adopted by the State of Maharashtra.
d.Nodal Officers- Most of the States have ap- pointed Nodal Officers specifically under Section 6 (2) of the POSH Act, 2013 except some of the States for which there is no clarity as to whether Nodal officers have been appointed or Nodal Officers said to be appointed have been so appointed under Sec- tion 6 (2) of the POSH Act, 2013 . A clarity is required for the following States/Uts-:
i. Chandigarh
ii. Department of Women and Child Development, Government of NCT of Delhi
iii. Goa
iv. Haryana
v. Himachal Pradesh
vi. Jammu & Kashmir
vii. Jharkhand
viii. Rajasthan ix. Sikkim”
3. Learned Amicus Curiae pointed out that paragraph 4 (a) to (d) of the Status Report and submitted that as far as the appointment of District Officers are concerned, the States and Union Territories have indeed complied with the directions and District Officers have been designated/appointed in every Districts of the States and Union Territories.
4. Insofar as the constitution of the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) is concerned, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that as far as the States of Delhi, Haryana, Jharkhand and Kerala are concerned, there is no clear picture. Therefore, the said States may be directed to file an additional affidavit before this Court informing about th
