The Supreme Court recently held that the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT/ Tribunal) has the jurisdiction to entertain appeals against findings of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to probe sexual harassment complaints against armed forces personnel [CDR Yogesh Mahla vs. Union Of India & Ors.].
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside orders of the Delhi High Court and the AFT which had declined to examine a Navy officer’s challenge to an ICC report.
The top court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication and also directed that the show cause notice issued to the officer proposing termination of his services should not be acted upon till the Tribunal decides the appeal.
The case arose from a complaint of sexual harassment made by a Principal Medical Officer against Commander Yogesh Mahla, an officer of the Indian Navy. Mahla was commissioned into the Navy in 2006, promoted to the rank of Commander, and was serving as Commander (Engineering) aboard INS Shakti at the relevant time.
Following the complaint, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted under the POSH Act in March 2024. After conducting an inquiry, the Committee submitted a report recommending action against the officer. Based on this report, a show cause notice was issued in March 2025 proposing termination of Mahla’s services under the Navy Act and applicable service regulations.
Mahla challenged both the ICC report and the show cause notice before the AFT. The AFT declined to interfere, holding that the proceedings were at a preliminary stage since only a show cause notice had been issued.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and further held that an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act was not available in such a case. Mahla then approached the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, Mahla argued that the show cause notice was directly founded on the ICC report and that unless the correctness of the report itself was examined, the disciplinary proceedings could not be meaningfully challenged.
He contended that Section 18 of the POSH Act expressly provides a right of appeal against ICC recommendations before the appropriate court or tribunal under applicable service rules.
The Union government, on the other hand, argued that the Navy authorities were acting under statutory service regulations and that interference at the show cause stage was premature.
The Supreme Court held that the AFT and the High Court had adopted an incorrect approach by treating the matter as a mere challenge to a show cause notice, without examining the statutory appeal provided under the POSH Act.
The Bench explained that the show cause notice was not an independent preliminary step but flowed directly from the ICC’s findings and recommendations, which were themselves under challenge.
The Court said that the POSH Act is a special legislation which specifically provides a right of appeal against adverse ICC recommendations.
“Section 18 of the POSH Act provides that if there is an adverse recommendation made by the Internal Complaints Committee, an appeal could be made to the court or the tribunal in terms of the service rules,” the Court noted.
The Bench held that when Section 18 of the POSH Act is read together with Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, it clearly enables service personnel to approach the AFT against ICC findings.
The Court concluded that the AFT ought to have examined the correctness of the ICC report instead of declining jurisdiction on the ground that only a show cause notice had been issued.
“The show cause notice was not simply a preliminary notice as such, it was a notice relatable directly to the report and recommendations of the ICC, which were a subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal,” the Court said.
The Supreme Court further held that the Delhi High Court was wrong in concluding that the officer had no right of appeal under the POSH Act.
Ultimately, the Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the AFT, restored the officer’s appeal before the AFT, and directed the Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law.
Pending the AFT's decision, the Court directed that the show cause notice proposing termination of service shall not be acted upon.
The Bench clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the sexual harassment allegations or the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee.
Mahla was represented by Senior Advocates Sanjiv Sen and Rajshekhar Rao along with advocates Akshay Bhandari, Mukul Dev, Shriya Gilhotra, Prahalad Balaji, Parimal Rai, Radha Gupta, Jharna Singh, Simran Gupta, Gauri Puri, Harshil Wason, Kashish Bhardwaj and Yadav Narender Singh.
The Union and other respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor Generals Vikramjeet Banerjee and Archana Pathak Dave, Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi and advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Aditya Kashyap, Santosh Kumar, PV Yogeswaran, Shubhendu Anand, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Vatsal Joshi, Ishaan Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Hrishikesh Baruah, Yashaswy Ghosh, Kshitij Singh, Pragya Agarwal and Nistha Sachan.
[Read Judgment]