Bombay High Court Dismisses Akasa Air Captain's Writ Plea Against POSH Committee Findings, Cites Availability of Statutory Appeal

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling on the scope of its writ jurisdiction, has dismissed a petition filed by an Akasa Air captain challenging the findings and recommendations of the airline's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the POSH Act, 2013. Justice N. J. Jamadar held that the petition was not maintainable, emphasizing that the petitioner should first exhaust the statutory remedy of an appeal available under Section 18 of the Act.

The court clarified that while procedural irregularities like the denial of cross-examination are serious, they do not automatically warrant bypassing the appellate mechanism, especially when the core facts of the incidents are not disputed.

Case Background

The case, titled ABC vs Internal Complaints Committee... by Akasa Air , involved a writ petition filed by a Captain challenging the ICC's final report dated February 12, 2025. The report was based on a complaint of workplace harassment filed by a trainee captain (Respondent No. 3) against the petitioner.

The ICC, after its inquiry, recommended disciplinary actions including a final warning letter, mandatory POSH refresher training, a six-month ban on upgrades, and a 45-day revocation of employee leisure travel benefits. Aggrieved by the inquiry process, which he alleged was procedurally flawed, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the report and demanded a fresh inquiry.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Submissions: The petitioner, represented by Advocate Ankita Singhania, argued that the ICC inquiry was vitiated by severe violations of the principles of natural justice. The core contentions were: - Denial of Cross-Examination: The petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the complainant and her witnesses, which is a fundamental aspect of a fair hearing. - No Personal Hearing: The inquiry was conducted solely on the basis of written submissions without affording an opportunity for a personal oral hearing. - Lack of Objectivity: The ICC's findings allegedly accepted the complainant's version without proper analysis and disregarded the petitioner's submissions. - Maintainability of Writ: It was argued that despite Akasa Air being a private entity, its ICC discharges a statutory public duty under the POSH Act, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction. Further, the existence of an alternate remedy is not a bar when there is a flagrant violation of natural justice.

Respondents' Submissions: Counsel for Akasa Air and its ICC, Advocate Payel Chatterjee, strongly contested the petition's maintainability on two primary grounds: - Private Entity: Akasa Air is a private company and not a 'State' or its instrumentality under Article 12 of the Constitution, and therefore cannot be subjected to a writ petition. - Efficacious Alternate Remedy: The POSH Act provides a clear and effective statutory remedy of an appeal under Section 18, which the petitioner failed to avail. All grounds raised in the writ petition could be effectively adjudicated by the designated Appellate Authority.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles Applied

Justice Jamadar conducted a thorough analysis of the two key legal questions: the maintainability of a writ petition against a private entity's ICC and the invocation of writ jurisdiction despite an available alternate remedy.

1. Writ Jurisdiction Against Private Entities: The court acknowledged that a writ under Article 226 can be issued against a private body performing a public function. However, it drew a crucial distinction:

"a distinction would be required to be drawn in cases where the ICC refuses to discharge statutory duty to inquire into the complaint... and the cases where the ICC allegedly conducts the inquiry not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules and the principles of natural justice."

The judgment clarified that while a complete refusal to act might constitute a failure of public duty, alleged procedural defects or incorrect findings in an inquiry are "error[s] within the jurisdiction" that are best examined by the statutory appellate body.

2. Alternate Remedy and Natural Justice: While accepting the established principle that a writ can be entertained in cases of natural justice violation, the court examined whether the alleged breach caused irrefutable prejudice.

Referencing the Supreme Court's decision in K. L. Tripathi vs. SBI , the High Court observed:

"A denial of right of cross-examination need not necessarily cause such prejudice as to vitiate the inquiry, in every case. Where there was no contest on the basic facts, absence of formal opportunity of cross-examination per se may not vitiate the decision."

The court noted that the petitioner had admitted to the occurrence of several incidents, though he contested the intent and inferences drawn by the ICC. In this context, the court concluded:

"this Court is of the considered view that the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses did not cause such prejudice as would warrant jettisoning away of the inquiry overboard, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction."

Similarly, on the denial of an oral hearing, the court held that it is not obligatory in every case, and providing an opportunity to make a written representation against preliminary findings can suffice.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act. To ensure fairness, the court ordered that if an appeal is filed within four weeks, the time spent prosecuting the writ petition should be considered for condoning any delay.

The judgment concludes with a crucial clarification:

"...this Court may not be understood to have expressed any opinion of the merits of the matter and, in the event, an appeal is preferred, all contentions of all the parties would be open for consideration by the Appellate Authority..."

This ruling reinforces the principle of judicial restraint and the "exhaustion of statutory remedies," guiding litigants to follow the specific legal pathways created by legislation like the POSH Act before approaching the High Courts for constitutional remedies.