Constitution of Local Complaints Committee (Sections 5–8)

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 builds a two-tier redressal architecture. The Internal Committee, governed by Section 4, sits inside each workplace of ten or more workers. But the Act's real reach lies in its second forum, the Local Committee, established by the State machinery under Sections 5 to 8 to catch precisely those women whom an in-house committee can never serve: the domestic worker, the labourer in a four-person establishment, and the employee whose complaint is against the employer himself. These four sections together answer who appoints the district-level officer, who constitutes the committee, what its membership and tenure must be, and how its work is funded and audited. This note unpacks each provision against the bare text and the leading judicial pronouncements.

The two-tier scheme: why a Local Committee at all

The Act does not rely on a single forum. Chapter II creates the Internal Committee (read our note on the Constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee), and Chapter III, comprising Sections 5 to 8, creates the Local Committee. The division is deliberate. An Internal Committee is constituted by the employer from amongst its own employees; it cannot exist where there are too few employees to staff it, and it cannot fairly adjudicate a complaint directed at the very employer who appointed it.

The Local Committee fills both gaps. Section 6(1) confines its remit to complaints "from establishments where the Internal Committee has not been constituted due to having less than ten workers or if the complaint is against the employer himself." The structural logic traces directly to the Supreme Court's reasoning in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, where a Bench of Verma CJ, Sujata Manohar and B.N. Kirpal JJ recognised that the right of a woman to a safe workplace under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g) and 21 cannot depend on the size of her employer. The 2013 statute, enacted to give that constitutional mandate legislative form, therefore reaches the unorganised sector and the household through this district-level committee.

It helps to recall who the Local Committee is meant to protect. The Act defines "unorganised sector" in Section 2(p) as an enterprise owned by individuals or self-employed workers, engaged in production or sale of goods or provision of any service, employing fewer than ten workers. Section 2(e) separately defines the "domestic worker" employed in a household, and the inclusive definition of "workplace" in Section 2(o) expressly extends to a dwelling place or house. None of these women has an Internal Committee to turn to, because no employer is statutorily obliged to constitute one below the ten-worker threshold under Section 4(1). For them the Local Committee is not a supplementary forum but the only forum, which is why the duty to constitute it under Section 6 is cast in mandatory terms and why judicial supervision of its actual existence has been so persistent.

Section 5: notification of the District Officer

Section 5 is the gateway provision. It reads: "The appropriate Government may notify a District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate or the Collector or Deputy Collector as a District Officer for every District to exercise powers or discharge functions under this Act." The District Officer is thus not a freshly created post but an existing revenue or executive functionary who is clothed, by notification, with the powers and functions the Act assigns.

Two features deserve emphasis. First, the choice of officer is limited to four named offices, all senior district administrators, signalling that Parliament intended the Local Committee to be anchored to a responsible and accountable arm of the State. Second, the definition clause confirms the linkage: Section 2(d) defines "District Officer" as "an officer notified under section 5," so every downstream reference to the District Officer in the Act, whether the duty to constitute the committee under Section 6 or the powers under Section 20, flows from this notification. Without a Section 5 notification there can be no validly constituted Local Committee, a point the Supreme Court underscored when it directed States to audit compliance in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424.

The use of the enabling word "may" in Section 5 should not mislead. Read with the mandatory "shall" in Section 6(1), which obliges "every District Officer" to constitute the committee, the scheme presupposes that a District Officer will in fact be notified for every district; otherwise the mandatory duty in Section 6 would have no one to discharge it. The District Officer is, moreover, no mere figurehead. Chapter VII, headed "Duties and Powers of District Officer," loads Section 20 with substantive functions: to monitor the timely submission of reports by the committees and to take such measures as may be necessary for engaging non-governmental organisations for creating awareness on sexual harassment and the rights of women. The Section 5 notification is therefore the act that animates an entire chapter of duties, and the officer's identity, drawn from the most senior tier of district administration, is chosen to match that responsibility.

Section 6: constitution and jurisdiction of the Local Committee

Section 6 carries a heading that was itself amended. The Amendment and Validation Act 23 of 2016 (with effect from 6 May 2016) substituted the expression "Local Committee" for the original "Local Complaints Committee" throughout the statute, so the modern bare text speaks of the "Local Committee" while older judgments and commentaries still use "Local Complaints Committee." Aspirants should treat the two as identical.

Section 6(1) imposes a mandatory duty: "Every District Officer shall constitute in the district concerned, a committee to be known as the Local Committee." The word "shall" admits of no discretion, an interpretive theme the Supreme Court repeatedly stressed in Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 297, where it lamented that fifteen years after Vishaka the machinery for redressal remained un-constituted in large parts of the country and directed the States to set up an adequate number of committees at taluka, district and State levels.

Section 6(2) introduces the nodal officer. The District Officer must "designate one nodal officer in every block, taluka and tehsil in rural or tribal area and ward or municipality in the urban area, to receive complaints and forward the same to the concerned Local Committee within a period of seven days." This decentralised receiving point is what makes the forum genuinely accessible to a woman who may live far from the district headquarters. The nodal officer is purely a conduit, not an adjudicator; she or he receives the complaint and forwards it, and the seven-day window prevents the complaint from languishing at the receiving end. The design directly answers the practical objection that a single district-level committee would be remote and unusable for a rural domestic worker. Section 6(3) then fixes territorial reach: "The jurisdiction of the Local Committee shall extend to the areas of the district where it is constituted."

This territorial confinement matters because the Act contemplates one Local Committee per district. A complaint arising in one district cannot be entertained by the committee of another, and a complainant must approach the committee whose jurisdiction covers the place of the establishment or household. The architecture echoes the layered enforcement that the Supreme Court demanded in Medha Kotwal Lele, where it was concerned that committees exist at every administrative tier so that no woman is left without an accessible forum.

Section 7(1): composition of the Local Committee

Section 7(1) prescribes a five-member committee, every member to be nominated by the District Officer. The composition is exhaustively enumerated:

(a) the Chairperson "to be nominated from amongst the eminent women in the field of social work and committed to the cause of women." Note the contrast with the Internal Committee, whose head is the Presiding Officer drawn from senior women employees of the workplace under Section 4(2)(a). The Local Committee's Chairperson must instead be an external eminent woman, reinforcing the committee's independence from any employer.

(b) one Member "to be nominated from amongst the women working in block, taluka or tehsil or ward or municipality in the district," grounding the committee in local administrative knowledge.

(c) two Members, "of whom at least one shall be a woman, to be nominated from amongst such non-governmental organisations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment, which may be prescribed." This clause carries two provisos: at least one nominee should "preferably, have a background in law or legal knowledge," and at least one nominee "shall be a woman belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or the Other Backward Classes or minority community notified by the Central Government." The mandatory SC/ST/OBC/minority representation is a feature unique to the Local Committee, absent from the Internal Committee, reflecting the marginalised constituency this forum is designed to serve.

(d) the ex-officio Member: "the concerned officer dealing with the social welfare or women and child development in the district, shall be a member ex officio."

The external member: genuine expertise, not a ritual

The requirement of a member "familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment" has generated significant case law, mostly arising under the parallel Section 4(2)(c) for Internal Committees but equally instructive for the Local Committee's clause (c). In Jaya Kodate v. Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University (Bombay High Court, 2014), the Court held that the absence of a properly qualified external member, one genuinely committed to the cause of women or possessing relevant social-work or legal expertise, renders the committee's constitution and its resultant proceedings illegal and void, and directed reconstitution.

The Delhi High Court took the same strict view in Ruchika Singh Chhabra v. M/s Air France India (30 May 2018). It set aside an inquiry because the external member, though a labour-law practitioner, did not satisfy the statutory criterion of familiarity with women's issues or sexual harassment specifically. The Court memorably held that the qualification cannot be treated as a "ritualistic" formality and ordered the committee reconstituted within thirty days for a fresh inquiry. For the Local Committee, where two of the five members come from the NGO or expert category, these decisions mean the District Officer must satisfy himself of real subject-matter competence before nomination, lest the entire proceeding be vitiated.

Section 7(2): tenure of office

Section 7(2) caps tenure: "The Chairperson and every Member of the Local Committee shall hold office for such period, not exceeding three years, from the date of their appointment as may be specified by the District Officer." The ceiling mirrors the three-year limit fixed for the Internal Committee under Section 4(3), creating a uniform maximum across both forums. The District Officer retains discretion to specify any shorter period; what he cannot do is nominate beyond three years. A nomination purporting to confer a longer term would be ultra vires the section.

Section 7(3): removal and casual vacancies

Section 7(3) lists four disqualifying contingencies on which the Chairperson or a Member "shall be removed from the Committee": (a) contravention of the confidentiality bar in Section 16; (b) conviction for an offence, or a pending inquiry into an offence under any law in force; (c) being found guilty in disciplinary proceedings, or having such proceedings pending; and (d) having "so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest." On removal, "the vacancy so created or any casual vacancy shall be filled by fresh nomination in accordance with the provisions of this section."

The drafting is deliberately identical to the parallel removal clause for the Internal Committee in Section 4(5), so the integrity standards governing the two forums are the same. The breach of confidentiality in clause (a) is particularly significant given that Section 16 prohibits publication of the identity of the aggrieved woman, the respondent, witnesses or the contents of the proceedings, breach of which attracts penalty under Section 17. A committee member who leaks proceedings is therefore not merely removable but personally penalisable.

Section 7(4): fees and allowances

Section 7(4) provides that "the Chairperson or Members of the Local Committee other than the Members nominated under clauses (b) and (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entitled to such fees or allowances for holding the proceedings of the Local Committee as may be prescribed." The two members carved out, the local government servant under clause (b) and the ex-officio welfare officer under clause (d), already draw a State salary and so are excluded; the Chairperson and the two NGO or expert members under clause (c) are remunerated because they serve from outside government. The precise quantum is left to the rules, principally the 2013 Rules made under Section 29. This entitlement is the financial hinge that connects Section 7 to the funding mechanism in Section 8.

Section 8: grants and audit

Section 8 builds the money pipeline that makes the Local Committee viable. Sub-section (1) provides that "the Central Government may, after due appropriation made by Parliament by law in this behalf, make to the State Government grants of such sums of money as the Central Government may think fit, for being utilised for the payment of fees or allowances referred to in sub-section (4) of section 7." The grant is thus earmarked: it funds the very fees that Section 7(4) creates.

Sub-section (2) permits the State Government to "set up an agency and transfer the grants made under sub-section (1) to that agency," and sub-section (3) requires that agency to "pay to the District Officer, such sums as may be required for the payment of fees or allowances referred to in sub-section (4) of section 7." The chain therefore runs Centre to State to agency to District Officer to committee member.

Sub-section (4) imposes accountability: "The accounts of the agency referred to in sub-section (2) shall be maintained and audited in such manner as may, in consultation with the Accountant General of the State, be prescribed," and the custodian of the accounts must furnish to the State Government, before the prescribed date, "its audited copy of accounts together with auditors' report thereon." This audit obligation distinguishes the Local Committee from the Internal Committee, whose members are paid directly by the private employer under Section 4(4) and require no public audit.

Local Committee contrasted with the Internal Committee

A clear contrast helps in the examination hall. The Internal Committee is constituted by the employer, staffed by employees, headed by a Presiding Officer who is a senior woman employee, and funded by the employer; it exists only where there are ten or more workers. The Local Committee is constituted by the District Officer, staffed by external eminent persons and local officials, headed by an external Chairperson, and funded through Central grants routed via a State agency; it serves establishments with fewer than ten workers and any complaint against the employer himself.

The membership requirements also differ. The Local Committee carries a mandatory SC/ST/OBC/minority woman member and a preference for a member with legal background under Section 7(1)(c), neither of which appears in Section 4. Both forums, however, share the same three-year tenure cap, the same removal grounds, and the same confidentiality discipline. For the complaint procedure that follows constitution, see our notes on the complaint procedure and on conciliation, both of which apply uniformly to the Internal and the Local Committee under Sections 9 to 11.

Powers of the Local Committee on inquiry

Although constitution is governed by Sections 5 to 8, the powers the committee wields once a complaint reaches it are worth noting because they explain why proper constitution matters so much. Under Section 11(3) the Local Committee, like the Internal Committee, enjoys the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for summoning witnesses, enforcing attendance, examining on oath, and requiring discovery and production of documents. In the special case of a domestic worker, Section 11(1) directs the Local Committee, if a prima facie case exists, to forward the complaint to the police within seven days for registration under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code and other applicable provisions.

Because these are coercive, quasi-judicial powers, a defectively constituted committee taints every step that follows, the very vice that Jaya Kodate and Ruchika Singh Chhabra warned against. The District Officer's care at the nomination stage under Section 7 is therefore not a formality but the foundation of the committee's jurisdiction.

Aureliano Fernandes and the compliance audit

The most consequential recent decision touching the constitution of these committees is Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 424, decided on 12 May 2023 by Hima Kohli and A.S. Bopanna JJ in Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014. Although the appeal itself concerned a procedurally unfair Internal Committee inquiry at Goa University, the Supreme Court used the occasion to issue sweeping directions for the effective implementation of the Act.

Among the directions, the Court required the Union, the States and the Union Territories to undertake a time-bound audit to verify that all government ministries, departments, public sector undertakings, authorities and institutions have constituted Internal Committees and Local Committees in strict conformity with the statute, and to publish on their websites the constitution, the names and contact details of members, and the complaint procedure. The judgment thus directly polices Sections 5 to 8: an un-notified District Officer or an un-constituted Local Committee is now a matter of recorded non-compliance before the Supreme Court. The decision continues the supervisory tradition of Vishaka and Medha Kotwal Lele, treating the mere existence of the redressal forum as a constitutional minimum rather than an administrative nicety.

The lineage is worth tracing for the examination. Vishaka (1997) created the guidelines under Articles 32 and 141 and required a complaints committee headed by a woman with at least half its members women and the involvement of a third party familiar with the subject, a template later codified in Sections 4 and 7. Medha Kotwal Lele (2012, reported at (2013) 1 SCC 297) found those guidelines under-implemented fifteen years on and directed the States to amend their service conduct rules so that a committee's report counts as the inquiry report in disciplinary proceedings, and to constitute committees at taluka, district and State levels. Aureliano Fernandes (2023) then converted that supervisory concern into a concrete, time-bound audit obligation, with the Court taking on record the compliance affidavits of the States and Union Territories. The constitutional thread running through all three is that a redressal body which exists only on paper offers no protection at all.

For the statutory backdrop and policy of the Act as a whole, readers may consult the Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act hub and the introductory note in this series.

Exam pointers and common traps

Several distinctions are routinely tested. First, the head of the Local Committee is the Chairperson (Section 7(1)(a) read with Section 2(c)), whereas the head of the Internal Committee is the Presiding Officer (Section 4(2)(a) read with Section 2(l)); confusing the two is a frequent error. Second, the District Officer is notified under Section 5 from among the DM, ADM, Collector or Deputy Collector, not appointed afresh. Third, the Local Committee is a five-member body, and at least one of the clause (c) members must belong to the SC, ST, OBC or a notified minority community. Fourth, the tenure ceiling is three years in both committees. Fifth, the trigger for Local Committee jurisdiction is twofold, fewer than ten workers or a complaint against the employer himself, not merely the size threshold. A careful candidate will also remember that the 2016 amendment renamed the body from "Local Complaints Committee" to "Local Committee," so both names denote the same Section 6 committee.