Sahitya Akademi Ruling: What ICCs Must Know

This 44-page judgment is pathbreaking, not only for detailing the lapses on the part of the organization but also for outlining, through its reasoning, how the entire fiasco could have been avoided with proper compliance.

“Before parting, it must be observed that the present controversy could well have been avoided had the Akademi, as a premier cultural institution, acted with the degree of openness and responsibility the law demands.”

This quote from a Delhi High Court judgment highlights a case where an employee was wrongfully terminated after she reported sexual harassment by the secretary. What stands out is the court’s observation that the entire controversy could have been avoided had the organization simply followed the principles laid down under the POSH Act. 

Time and again, we see organizations attempting to suppress complaints rather than address them. This silencing, instead of listening, often results in flawed and unjust outcomes. This not only dampens the complainant’s spirit but also erodes the trust within and towards the organization. 

This case of X vs AKADEMI AND ORS. is an eye-opener for workplaces everywhere. It highlights the fact that turning a blind eye to complaints isn’t just risky, it can be unlawful. It highlights how crucial it is for organizations to take every complaint seriously, ensure fair processes, and protect employees from retaliation. For ICCs, it’s a reminder that accountability, transparency, and sensitivity are not optional. they are the foundation of a safe and respectful workplace.

Case Brief

This case traces the journey of a woman, referred to as “X,” who experienced sexual harassment at the Sahitya Akademi, starting from the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which was reluctant to take action, moving to the Local Complaints Committee (LCC), and eventually reaching the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.

The Complaint and IC’s Response

In 2018, a woman, referred to as “X,” joined the Sahitya Akademi in a senior role. Almost immediately, she faced sexual harassment from the Akademi’s secretary, Dr. K. Srinivasa Rao. According to her complaint, the harassment was not limited to lewd comments or suggestive gestures. It included discriminatory remarks targeting her regional identity, and repeated sexualized behavior during official trips and office interactions. From the very beginning of her professional journey, “X” found herself in a hostile environment, where daily interactions became a source of stress, intimidation, and fear.

“X” raised her concerns with the Akademi, writing emails to senior officials and requesting an independent investigation into the secretary’s behavior. Instead of addressing her complaint, the organization dismissed her, citing “poor performance,” and pressured her to retract the allegations. The ICC appeared unwilling to act, questioning its own jurisdiction over a senior official. In effect, the very mechanisms meant to protect her were being used to silence her.

Escalation To LCC

Refusing to back down, the complainant approached the LCC. The LCC is a district-level body constituted under Section 6 of the POSH Act, 2013, to receive and redress complaints of sexual harassment from women employees in workplaces that do not have an ICC, particularly organizations with fewer than ten employees or cases against the employer themselves.

In their order, LCC determined that the complaint was eligible for a preliminary hearing and concluded that the role of ‘secretary’ was covered under the definition of ’employer’ in Section 2(g) of the POSH Act. The LCC’s recommendations included granting X three months’ paid leave as interim relief and requiring the employer to facilitate a fair inquiry into her allegations. The LCC also directed the employer to ensure that no adverse action was taken against the complainant until the inquiry was completed.

How It Reached Delhi High Court

Despite these clear orders, the Sahitya Akademi did not implement the LCC’s recommendations. Instead, the organization became hostile, dismissed the complainant, and ignored statutory protections, which compelled “X” to Delhi High Court because the Sahitya Akademi dismissed her and ignored the LCC’s recommendations, leaving her without a remedy and facing retaliation despite having lodged a formal complaint of sexual harassment.

The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in “X’s” favor. It held that her termination had been retaliatory and unlawful, reinstating her and reaffirming the LCC’s authority to investigate complaints against senior officials. 

The court strongly criticized the Akademi for its lack of transparency and accountability, highlighting its attempts to shield the secretary and dismiss the complainant’s grievance. It underscored that terminations based on harassment complaints, especially when driven by malice or intimidation, violate both legal provisions and principles of fairness. “X’s” employment was terminated effective May 8, 2020, via an official memorandum that also ceased her salary.

Division Bench and Supreme Court’s Stance

On October 25, 2021, the Delhi High Court quashed this termination memorandum, ruling the dismissal unlawful. The Akademi and the secretary appealed, and on November 12, 2021, a division bench stayed the High Court’s order, effectively delaying “X’s” reinstatement and salary payments. Consequently, “X” escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, which on April 12, 2022, directed that she be paid her salary from April 1, 2022, pending the final decision on the appeal.

The Supreme Court, while modifying the stay in favor of the petitioner and directing payment of emoluments pending appeal, observed that the Secretary had not been heard or impleaded as a party during the original writ proceedings. 

Delhi High Court’s Judgement

As a result, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s judgment and remanded the case for fresh consideration, including the Secretary as Respondent No. 4. The learned Single Judge then proceeded to rehear the matter.

The key questions decided by the court in this rehearing were:

• Whether the LCC held exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and examine the sexual harassment complaint?
• Whether the petitioner’s termination via an office memorandum was liable to be quashed as unlawful and retaliatory?

The Court firmly held that the Secretary of the Akademi falls within the definition of “employer” under Section 2(g) of the POSH Act. Therefore, the LCC has exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner’s sexual harassment complaint, rendering the ICC constituted by the Respondent without jurisdiction. Crucially, the Court quashed the office memorandum that terminated the petitioner’s employment during the pendency of her complaint, declaring the termination illegal and mala fide, driven by retaliation and blatant disregard of court orders. As a remedy, the Court ordered immediate reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, full back wages, and all consequential benefits. This ruling underscores the broad and purposive interpretation of “employer” in the POSH Act as encompassing any person responsible for management, supervision, and control of the workplace.

Lessons for ICCs

The Sahitya Akademi case serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities and best practices that ICCs must uphold to ensure justice, fairness, and safety in the workplace. It underscores that effective committees do more than process complaints. They safeguard employees, uphold legal standards, and shape organizational culture.

Key lessons for ICCs include:

1. Jurisdiction Includes Senior Officials: ICCs must investigate complaints against all employees, including top management, without bias or fear.
   
2. Retaliation is Illegal: Committees must monitor and prevent any retaliatory actions against complainants.
   
3. Maintain Transparency: Keep complainants informed while ensuring confidentiality; clear communication builds trust.
   
4. Document Everything: Proper records, timelines, and evidence are crucial for fair and defensible investigations.
   
5. Educate Leadership and Employees: Awareness programs can help prevent harassment and foster respect.
   
6. Culture Matters: Policies alone aren’t enough; ICCs should advocate for a culture where reporting harassment is safe and supported.

The Sahitya Akademi judgment is a reminder that following due process is not optional, it’s essential. Ignoring complaints or mishandling them not only harms individuals but also damages the organization’s credibility and culture.

For ICCs, the role is to act fairly, record accurately, and make decisions without fear or favour. A well-trained IC can prevent situations like this from ever reaching the courts.

At Ungender, our IC training programs focus on helping members understand the law, build confidence in their role, and handle complaints with fairness and clarity. When ICs are equipped, workplaces become stronger and safer for everyone.