Home  /  Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013  /  Section 28

Section 28: Act not in derogation of any other law

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
Section 27 All 30 Sections of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 29

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 28

Section 28 establishes the non-derogation principle of the POSH Act, declaring that its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law in force, thereby preserving concurrent criminal, civil, tortious, and disciplinary remedies while affording bona fide protection to quasi-judicial committee members acting in good faith.

  • Cumulative and Concurrent Legal Remedies: Statutorily enshrines that the remedies, inquiry procedures, and penalties provided under the POSH Act operate concurrently with, and do not extinguish, remedies under general criminal law (BNS / IPC), service rules, labor laws, or civil tort actions.
  • Parallel Operation of Disciplinary and Criminal Proceedings: An aggrieved woman is fully entitled to pursue an administrative inquiry before the IC/LC while concurrently registering an FIR with the police under Sections 74, 75, 78, 79 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Sections 354, 354A, 354D, 509 IPC); neither proceeding operates as a bar or double jeopardy against the other.
  • Good Faith Protection and Qualified Privilege for Committee Inquirers: Inherent in the quasi-judicial architecture of the Act and general principles of public law, committee members discharging statutory inquiry duties in good faith without malice enjoy qualified privilege against retaliatory civil defamation or criminal intimidation suits filed by respondents.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Additional District and Sessions Judge 'X' v. Registrar General, High Court of M.P. (2015) 4 SCC 91: The Supreme Court held that the POSH Act operates in addition to constitutional and service regulations; the existence of a statutory POSH mechanism does not preclude the invocation of high constitutional remedies or judicial service regulations.
  • State of Karnataka v. T. Venkataramanappa (1996) 6 SCC 455: The Supreme Court established that departmental disciplinary inquiries and criminal trials can proceed simultaneously because their purposes, standard of proof (preponderance of probability vs. beyond reasonable doubt), and adjudicative scopes are distinct.
  • Prof. Bidyut Chakraborty v. Delhi University (2009 SCC OnLine Del 3105): The Delhi High Court affirmed that parallel remedies under criminal law and internal complaints committees do not violate the doctrine against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
  • Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Union of India (2013) 15 SCC 737: Laid down the principles of good faith protection, holding that statutory and quasi-judicial officers acting bona fide within their jurisdiction are shielded from civil and criminal liability for decisions rendered during statutory duties.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Courtroom and litigation strategy: resist respondent applications seeking stay of IC proceedings pending trial in a criminal FIR, citing T. Venkataramanappa and Section 28; when defending IC members sued by delinquent employees for defamation or damages, invoke Section 28 read with the doctrine of qualified privilege and statutory duty, seeking dismissal at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Section 27 All 30 Sections of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 29