Section 25: Power to call for information and inspection of records

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2013

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 25

Section 25 confers sweeping regulatory and investigative powers upon the Appropriate Government to call for written information from employers and District Officers and to authorize officers to conduct physical inspections of workplaces and records concerning sexual harassment compliance.

  • Statutory Trigger: Public Interest and Women's Welfare: Empowers the Appropriate Government, upon being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest or in the interest of women employees at any workplace, to initiate regulatory scrutiny by written order.
  • Power to Call for Information and Depute Inspecting Officers: Sub-section (1)(a) empowers the government to call upon any employer or District Officer to submit written information; sub-section (1)(b) allows authorizing an inspecting officer to inspect workplace premises, registers, and inquiry files and submit a written inspection report within a specified period.
  • Mandatory Production of Custodial Records and Non-Compliance Penalties: Sub-section (2) creates an absolute legal obligation on employers and District Officers to produce on demand all records, files, and documents; non-compliance triggers penal prosecution and fines under Section 26.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023) 14 SCC 566: The Supreme Court affirmed that administrative inspection under Section 25 is a critical weapon against institutional cover-ups; directed regulatory bodies and government departments to carry out periodic compliance audits.
  • Initiative for Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1361): Directed labor commissioners and appropriate government authorities to exercise Section 25 inspection powers to detect non-constitution of ICs in establishments and prosecute defaulting management.
  • Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal (1969) 1 SCC 325: The Supreme Court established the administrative law principle that the subjective satisfaction of the government to initiate statutory inspection must be supported by prima facie objective materials demonstrating public interest.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Corporate audit readiness: maintain an inspection-ready 'POSH Statutory File' comprising IC notification orders, CVs of members, annual reports with DO acknowledgments, workshop registers, and anonymized inquiry dockets; if an inspection notice is received, comply strictly while ensuring victim confidentiality under Section 16 is preserved.