Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is the statutory body that every employer is required to constitute under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), to receive and inquire into complaints of sexual harassment at the workplace. Under Indian law, the ICC functions as a quasi-judicial body with powers to recommend disciplinary action, compensation, and interim relief.
Legal definition
The POSH Act, 2013 mandates the constitution of the ICC:
Section 4(1): Every employer of a workplace shall, by an order in writing, constitute a Committee to be known as the "Internal Complaints Committee."
The composition requirements under Section 4(2) are:
- Presiding Officer: A woman employed at a senior level at the workplace (if not available, a woman from another office or administrative unit)
- Two members: From amongst employees, preferably committed to the cause of women or having experience in social work or legal knowledge
- External member: One member from an NGO or association committed to the cause of women, or a person familiar with issues relating to sexual harassment
At least one-half of the total members must be women. The presiding officer and members hold office for a period not exceeding three years. Where the workplace has distinct offices or administrative units at different locations, a separate ICC must be constituted at each office or unit.
The ICC's powers include:
- Receiving complaints (Section 9)
- Attempting conciliation before inquiry at the complainant's request (Section 10)
- Conducting an inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice (Section 11)
- Recommending interim measures — transfer, leave, or restraining orders (Section 12)
- Submitting findings and recommendations to the employer within 10 days of completion of inquiry (Section 13)
- Recommending deduction from wages or payment of compensation to the aggrieved woman (Section 15)
How courts have interpreted this term
Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa [(2023) 15 SCC 610]
The Supreme Court issued sweeping directions for POSH Act compliance, holding that every employer must constitute an ICC and that failure to do so is a continuing violation. The Court directed all District Officers to maintain a list of ICCs in their jurisdiction, mandated orientation and training for ICC members, and directed that employers file annual compliance reports. The Court observed that widespread non-compliance with the POSH Act defeated its very purpose.
Hema Committee Report — Kerala High Court [2024 — related proceedings]
The Kerala High Court, in the context of the Hema Committee Report on sexual harassment in the Malayalam film industry, emphasised that the POSH Act requires the constitution of ICCs by production houses and film industry bodies, and that the informal and temporary nature of film sets does not exempt employers from their obligations under the Act.
Saurabh Kumar Mallick v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India [(2023) — Delhi HC, followed by SC]
The Delhi High Court held that ICC proceedings must comply with principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and the right to be heard. However, the standard of proof in ICC proceedings is the "preponderance of probabilities" (civil standard), not "beyond reasonable doubt" (criminal standard). This reflects the ICC's civil rather than criminal jurisdiction.
Why this matters
The ICC is the operational mechanism through which the POSH Act achieves its objectives. Without a properly constituted and functioning ICC, the Act's protections exist only on paper. For this reason, the Supreme Court in Aureliano Fernandes treated non-constitution of the ICC as a serious violation warranting regulatory consequences.
For organisations, the ICC is not merely a compliance requirement — it is the employer's primary defence against liability. When a complaint is filed, an employer that has a properly constituted ICC, conducts a fair inquiry, and acts on the ICC's recommendations demonstrates compliance and limits its exposure. Conversely, an employer without an ICC or one that ignores ICC recommendations faces enhanced liability.
For ICC members, the role carries significant responsibility. ICC members who have a conflict of interest, leak confidential information, or conduct proceedings in violation of natural justice expose themselves and the employer to legal challenge. The presiding officer, in particular, must ensure that proceedings are conducted with the sensitivity that the subject demands while maintaining procedural fairness to both parties.
For the complainant, the ICC provides a less adversarial and more accessible forum than the criminal justice system. The inquiry is conducted within the workplace setting, and the complainant is not required to face cross-examination by a lawyer for the respondent (though the respondent may be assisted by a person of their choice).
Related terms
Parent concepts:
Related protections:
Frequently asked questions
Which organisations must have an ICC?
Every workplace employing 10 or more employees must constitute an ICC under Section 4 of the POSH Act. If the organisation has multiple offices at different locations, a separate ICC must be constituted at each location. The obligation applies equally to government departments, private companies, NGOs, educational institutions, hospitals, and all other workplaces.
How long does the ICC have to complete an inquiry?
The ICC must complete its inquiry within 90 days of the date of the complaint. Upon completion, the ICC submits a report with findings and recommendations to the employer, who must act on the recommendations within 60 days.
What happens if the ICC finds the complaint to be false?
Under Section 14 of the POSH Act, if the ICC concludes that the allegation was made with malicious intent or was false, it may recommend action against the complainant. However, the mere inability to substantiate a complaint does not make it false — the ICC must find that the complaint was made knowing it to be false or that forged or misleading evidence was produced.
Can ICC proceedings be challenged in court?
Yes. ICC recommendations and the employer's action on those recommendations can be challenged before the appropriate court or tribunal. High Courts have exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to review ICC proceedings on grounds of jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or perversity of findings.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.