Can an ICC reject a POSH complaint without conducting an inquiry—and then argue that its decision cannot be appealed?

The Bombay High Court has held that the absence of an inquiry does not take away the statutory right of appeal.

In Anup Vikal v. State of Maharashtra and connected petitions (19 August 2026), Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that an ICC’s decision rejecting a complaint for allegedly lacking a sexual element constitutes a “recommendation” under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, and is therefore appealable under Section 18.

The reasoning is significant: an ICC’s failure to conduct an inquiry cannot become the very reason its decision escapes appellate scrutiny. Such an interpretation would allow threshold rejection to undermine the Act’s remedial purpose.

But the judgment also draws an important procedural boundary:

An appeal being maintainable does not mean the complaint succeeds.

The appellate forum must determine whether the complaint contains an element of sexual harassment before directing an ICC inquiry.

A hearing confined to maintainability cannot become a final decision on merits without notice and an opportunity for the parties to be heard.

Applying these principles, the High Court upheld the availability of the appeal but set aside the Industrial Court’s order allowing it and directing a fresh ICC inquiry. The appeal was sent back to the Industrial Court for a fresh decision on merits. No finding that sexual harassment had occurred was made.

The central takeaway: access to statutory redress and procedural fairness must operate together. A threshold rejection is not insulated from review—but appellate review is not an automatic finding against the respondents.