List of Current Affairs
Home / List of Current Affairs
Criminal Law
Inclusion of ICC Jurisdiction
11-Dec-2025
Source: Supreme Court
Why in News?
The bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi in the case of Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India and Another (2025) held that when a woman is subjected to sexual harassment at the workplace by a person who is not part of her own organization, she is entitled to file her complaint before the Internal Complaints Committee of her own workplace.
What was the Background of Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India and Another (2025) Case?
- The case stemmed from an incident on May 15, 2023, where an IAS officer alleged that the appellant, an IRS officer, sexually harassed her at her workplace in Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
- An FIR was registered following the incident.
- The aggrieved woman also filed a complaint under the POSH Act before the ICC in her department, the Department of Food and Public Distribution.
- The appellant challenged the ICC's jurisdiction before the Central Administrative Tribunal, arguing that as an employee of the Central Board of Direct Taxes under the Department of Revenue, only an ICC constituted at his workplace could inquire into the complaint.
- The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his challenge to the ICC's jurisdiction.
- The appellant then approached the Delhi High Court, which also dismissed his challenge.
- This led to the appeal being filed in the Supreme Court.
What were the Court's Observations?
- The Court rejected the narrow interpretation of the word 'workplace', holding that such an interpretation would undermine the POSH Act's remedial social welfare intent by creating significant practical hurdles for the aggrieved woman.
- The bench observed that if the aggrieved woman had to approach the ICC constituted at the workplace of the respondent for every third-party incident, it would fall short of the Act's protective objectives.
- The Court noted that the Act does not provide that the respondent must necessarily be an employee of the same workplace where the aggrieved woman works.
- The expansive definitions enable the ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman's workplace to exercise jurisdiction over an employee of a different workplace.
- The Court clarified that any person against whom a complaint is filed by the aggrieved woman before the ICC constituted at her workplace is a respondent under the POSH Act.
- The Court emphasized that under Section 13 of the POSH Act, the ICC has a dual role to conduct the preliminary or fact-finding inquiry under the POSH Act and to act as the inquiry authority in formal disciplinary proceedings.
- The Court directed that the employer of the respondent, even if it is a different department, must abide by its duties under Section 19(f) of the POSH Act to swiftly cooperate and make available information upon a request by the ICC of the aggrieved woman's workplace.
What is the POSH Act?
About:
- The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013, commonly known as the POSH Act, is landmark legislation designed to protect women from sexual harassment in the workplace.
- This Act emerged after decades of advocacy by women's organizations and rights activists in India's patriarchal society.
- The Act was enacted following the Vishaka Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in 1997.
- It provides a mechanism for redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and aims to create a safe working environment for women.
- The Act defines sexual harassment broadly to include unwelcome sexually determined behavior, physical contact, demand or request for sexual favors, sexually colored remarks, and showing pornography.
Objectives of the POSH Act:
- Prevention: Create awareness and establish mechanisms to prevent sexual harassment.
- Prohibition: Legally prohibit all forms of workplace harassment.
- Redressal: Provide effective time-bound grievance redressal mechanism.
- Protection: Safeguard women's constitutional rights to equality and dignity.
- Confidence Building: Give female employees confidence in protection mechanisms.
- Creating Safe Workplaces: Foster harassment-free work environments.
- Speedy Justice: Reduce judicial workload through efficient complaint resolution.
Jurisdiction of ICC:
- Section 2(o) of the POSH Act provides a wide and all-encompassing definition of 'workplace', including any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment.
- The Court's interpretation clarified that the phrase "where the respondent is an employee" in Section 11 cannot be interpreted to mean that ICC proceedings may only be instituted before the ICC constituted at the workplace of the respondent.
- A restrictive interpretation would run contrary to the scheme of the Act and its remedial social welfare intent.
- The ICC constituted at the aggrieved woman's workplace has jurisdiction to inquire into complaints against employees of other workplaces where the harassment occurred at the aggrieved woman's workplace.
- This interpretation ensures that women do not face practical hurdles in accessing justice and that the protective framework of the POSH Act is effectively implemented.
Criminal Law
Police Powers to Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 102 CrPC
11-Dec-2025
Source: Supreme Court
Why in News?
The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey (2025) ruled that police and investigating agencies are empowered to freeze bank accounts under Section 102 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 106 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) in cases initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
What was the Background of State of West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Dey (2025) Case?
- The case involved allegations against police inspector Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar for amassing assets disproportionate to his known income during the period 2007-2017.
- During the investigation, several Fixed Deposits held by his father, Anil Kumar Dey (the respondent), were frozen by the Anti-Corruption Branch under Section 102 CrPC.
- The respondent challenged the freezing orders, arguing that attachment in Prevention of Corruption Act cases must follow only the special procedure under Section 18A of the PC Act.
- The Calcutta High Court, relying on the observation in Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka (2022), ordered the de-freezing of the accounts.
- The High Court held that the PC Act is a complete code and therefore account-freezing under the CrPC is impermissible.
- The State of West Bengal appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.
What were the Court's Observations?
- The Supreme Court held that the power of seizure under CrPC and attachment under the PC Act are separate and distinct powers that coexist and are not mutually exclusive.
- The bench observed that investigators need not first resort to the special attachment procedure under Section 18A before acting under Section 102, as both statutory routes operate independently.
- The Court noted that prompt freezing of suspected illicit funds is often essential to prevent dissipation of assets during investigation.
- The Supreme Court rejected the respondent's reliance on Ratan Babulal Lath v. State of Karnataka, holding that the observation regarding the PC Act being a complete code does not amount to a binding precedent under Article 141, as it was made without detailed analysis.
- Setting aside the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the freezing orders issued by the police and dismissed the challenge raised by the accused public servant.
What is Section 102 CrPC?
About:
- Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with the power of police officers to seize certain property during investigation.
- This provision has now been replaced by Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which came into effect on July 1, 2024.
- The section empowers police officers to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances creating suspicion of the commission of any offence.
- It is a general seizure power available to investigating officers at the preliminary stage of investigation.
- The provision aims to prevent dissipation of assets and preserve evidence during the course of criminal investigations.
Section 106 BNSS (Corresponding Provision):
- Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the successor provision to Section 102 CrPC.
- The provision maintains the same essential powers as Section 102 CrPC, allowing police officers to seize property suspected to be involved in offences.
- BNSS represents the modernization of criminal procedure laws in India, replacing the colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure.
- The seizure powers under Section 106 BNSS apply to all criminal investigations, including cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 102 CrPC and Bank Account Freezing:
- The Supreme Court clarified that Section 102 CrPC empowers police to freeze bank accounts in corruption cases as part of their general seizure powers.
- This power operates independently and is not displaced by the special attachment mechanism provided under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Both the general seizure power under CrPC and the special attachment power under the PC Act can coexist and are not mutually exclusive.
- Investigators need not first resort to the special attachment procedure under Section 18A before acting under Section 102 CrPC.
- Prompt freezing of suspected illicit funds under Section 102 is essential to prevent dissipation of assets during investigation.
- The effect of seizure under Section 102 and attachment under Section 18A may appear similar (property being taken into custody), but the powers themselves are separate and distinct.
- This ruling provides investigative agencies with an effective mechanism to act swiftly at the preliminary stage of corruption investigations without being restricted to the special procedures under the PC Act.