Meghalaya High Court
WP(C)/422/2025 of SHAMBHU SHARMA Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. on 23 October 2025
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG WP(C) No. 422 of 2025 Date of order: 23.10.2025 Shambhu Sharma …Petitioner - versus - 1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Development of North-Eastern Region (DONER), Government of India, New Delhi-110001. 2. The North
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 422 of 2025
Date of order: 23.10.2025
Shambhu Sharma
…Petitioner
- versus -
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Ministry of Development of North-Eastern Region (DONER), Government of India, New Delhi-110001.
2. The North Eastern Council (NEC), represented by the Secretary, NEC Secretariat, Shillong-793003.
3. The North Eastern Council, represented by the Chairman, 1st Floor, NEC Secretariat, Nongrim Hills, Shillong-793003, Meghalaya.
4. The Chairman, Internal Complaints Committee (Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women in the Workplace), NEC Secretariat, Shillong-793001.
5. Miss Lahunlang Syiem (Casual Worker), NEC Secretariat, Nongrim Hills, Shillong, East Khasi Hills District, Meghalaya-793003 …Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Soumen Sen, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr A.R. Tahbildar, Adv.
For the Respondents : Dr N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms K. Gurung, Adv.
i) Whether approved for
Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press: Serial No. 03 Daily List
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. It appears that the procedure prescribed in Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 read with Rule 7 of the said Act, has not been followed. The Internal Committee seems to have treated the FIR lodged almost six months prior to taking cognizance by the Internal Committee and on that basis, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner.
3. Admittedly, no complaint in writing as envisaged in Section 9 of the Act, 2013 was made to the Internal Committee. In our opinion, the Internal Committee can only assume jurisdiction provided a written complaint is made to the said Committee within the time frame prescribed under Section 9 of the Act, 2013. In absence of any complaint in writing within the time limit prescribed therein, the Committee cannot suo motu initiate proceedings against the petitioner treating the FIR as a complaint.
4. The Internal Committee can only function to the manner prescribed under the said the Act. In view of the fact that the assumption of jurisdiction was patently illegal, we are of the view that the Internal Committee could not have proceeded with the said complaint. On this limited ground, we set aside the judgment passed by the Tribunal.
5. The writ petition succeeds, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
(W. Diengdoh) (Soumen Sen)
Judge Chief Justice
2025:MLHC:1003-DB Digitally signed by SYLVANA LIZ KHARBHIH Date: 2025.10.23 18:00:44 IST Signature Not Verified