New Delhi: In a sexual harassment case involving an Indian Navy officer, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person aggrieved by an order of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace (POSH) Act, 2013, is entitled to approach the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) by way of an appeal.
The 27 January 2026 order came while the top court was hearing a petition filed by Navy officer Yogesh Mahla, challenging a 10 July 2025 order of the Delhi High Court, which had refused to stay the ICC proceedings against him. Setting that order aside, the Supreme Court ruled that “holding that the appellant had no right under Section 18 of the POSH Act”—under which a person aggrieved by the ICC can file a challenge within 90 days—“was not right”.
The case arises from a sexual harassment complaint filed in March 2024 by a principal medical officer against Mahla. In a letter to the commanding officer of INS Shakti, the woman alleged that Mahla had sexually harassed her on different occasions during her employment.
Following an inquiry, the ICC issued a show-cause notice to Mahla, asking him to explain why he should not be removed from service. Mahla challenged the notice before the Armed Forces Tribunal, but it declined to entertain his plea.
He then approached the Delhi High Court against the ICC proceedings, but his petition, once again, was dismissed in July 2025.
In the latest development in the case, a bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan intervened, clarifying that an appeal against an ICC order is maintainable before the Armed Forces Tribunal under the POSH Act.
In a relief for Navy officer Yogesh Mahla, the court sent his grievance back to the Armed Forces Tribunal for fresh consideration, putting on hold the show-cause notice against him until the tribunal decides his case.
The parties concerned with the case will now appear before the tribunal on 9 February.
How ICC operates & officer’s pleas
Yogesh Mahla was commissioned in the Indian Navy in January 2006 and was later promoted to the rank of commander. After allegations of sexual harassment were levelled against him, an ICC was constituted under the POSH Act, 2013, on 8 March 2024.
An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is a body envisaged under the POSH Act to address complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace.
Section 4 of the POSH Act states, “Every employer of a workplace shall, by an order in writing, constitute a committee to be known as the ‘Internal Complaints Committee’.” It further specifies that in workplaces with administrative units at different locations, ICCs shall be constituted at each administrative unit or office.
Such a committee should include a presiding officer who shall be a woman employed at a senior level at the workplace concerned. If such a senior woman employee is unavailable, the presiding officer may be nominated from other offices or administrative units of the workplace.
The Act mandates at least two members of the committee to be persons committed to the cause of women or having experience in social work or legal knowledge. One member must be from an NGO committed to the cause of women or familiar with issues relating to sexual harassment. At least 50% of the ICC’s total composition must be women.
The report prepared by the ICC after its inquiry into Mahla stated that appropriate action may be initiated against him. The show-cause notice, sent on 5 March 2025, directed him to explain within ten days why his services should not be terminated under Regulation 216 of the Navy Regulations and Section 15(2) of the Navy Act, 1957.
Regulation 216 deals with the termination of a naval officer’s service, usually on grounds of misconduct. Section 15(2) of the Navy Act empowers the Central Government or the Chief of the Naval Staff to discharge or retire an officer or sailor from naval service.
In March 2025, Mahla first approached the Armed Forces Tribunal in New Delhi to quash the proceedings against him and the ICC’s recommendations. In May 2025, the tribunal dismissed his plea, observing that it was neither appropriate nor legally tenable for it to interfere or assume the role of the disciplinary authority, and that its jurisdiction could be invoked only after the ICC process concluded.
Subsequently, Mahla approached the Delhi High Court, which dismissed his petition on the ground that the right to appeal against the ICC’s recommendation was not available to him.
What the top court said
In its 27 January 2026 ruling, the two-judge bench noted that the show-cause notice issued on 5 March 2025 was based on the ICC’s report, which must be “considered meaningfully” in light of the provisions of the Navy Act and Regulation 216.
The court noted that before removing an officer, the central government or the chief of the naval staff must be satisfied that a court-martial is neither expedient nor practicable, and that there must be an opinion that further retention of the officer in service is undesirable.
“When all these facts co-exist, the chief of the naval staff shall inform the officer, together with all reports adverse to him, and call upon him to submit, in writing, his explanation and defence,” the court said, adding that if the explanation is found unsatisfactory, the case is forwarded to the Central Government.
The central government, after examining the report, the officer’s defence, and the recommendation of the chief of the naval staff, may dismiss or discharge the officer without pension, or require him to retire or resign. If the officer declines, he may be compulsorily retired or discharged with pension or gratuity.
“Section 18 of the POSH Act provides that if there is an adverse recommendation made by the ICC under Section 13(3)(i), an appeal may be made to the court or tribunal,” the Supreme Court clarified. Section 13(3)(i) of the Act states that where the ICC concludes that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or district officer to take action for sexual harassment as misconduct.
The court held that Mahla had rightly approached the Armed Forces Tribunal to challenge the ICC report and the consequential show-cause notice, observing that “the tribunal ought to have considered the correctness of the said report in accordance with law”.
Referring to Section 18 of the POSH Act and Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, which vests the tribunal with jurisdiction over service matters, the court concluded that the interests of justice would be served by setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the tribunal for fresh adjudication.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court sent the matter back to the Armed Forces Tribunal for fresh consideration and stayed the operation of the show-cause notice until the case is decided. The parties will now appear before the tribunal on 9 February 2026.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: 3 oceans & a crew of 2 on historic voyage: Women Navy officers to return home after 8 months at sea