top of page
Search

Access Over Technicalities: Supreme Court’s Expansion of IC Jurisdiction under the POSH Act

In a landmark judgment delivered in December 2025, the Supreme Court of India significantly expanded the jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committees (ICs) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (1) (POSH Act). The ruling settles a long-standing ambiguity around who has the authority to inquire into sexual harassment complaints when the respondent belongs to a different workplace or organisation.

By adopting a purposive and survivor-centric interpretation of the law, the Court reinforced the core objective of the POSH Act would remain ensuring effective and accessible redressal for aggrieved women, without being defeated by procedural technicalities.


The Case 

The issue came before the Supreme Court in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India, (2) where a senior IAS officer filed a sexual harassment complaint against an IRS officer working in a different department. The complaint was filed before the IC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace.

The respondent challenged the inquiry, claiming that the IC lacked jurisdiction since he was not employed in that department. This challenge brought the question of ICC jurisdiction under the POSH Act squarely before the Court.

The Jurisdictional Challenge Under the POSH Act

The POSH Act mandates every workplace with ten or more employees to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (IC). While the law is clear when both the complainant and respondent work in the same organisation, confusion arose in cases involving:

a) Inter-departmental complaints

b) Third-party sexual harassment

c) Complaints involving employees of different organisations or ministries

In such cases, respondents often challenged the jurisdiction of the IC, arguing that only the IC of the respondent’s workplace could conduct the inquiry. This interpretation placed an additional burden on aggrieved women, sometimes forcing them to approach unfamiliar or inaccessible workplaces to seek justice.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: A Clear Expansion of IC Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court decisively rejected a narrow interpretation of the POSH Act and laid down the following key principles:

1. IC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace has jurisdiction

The Court held that the IC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman is competent to inquire into the complaint, even if the respondent works in a different department or organisation. Jurisdiction does not shift merely because the respondent is employed elsewhere.

This interpretation ensures that access to justice remains centred on the survivor, not the accused.

2. Section 11(1) Is Procedural, Not Restrictive

Interpreting Section 11(1) (3) of the POSH Act, which refers to inquiries “where the respondent is an employee,” the Court clarified that this phrase is procedural in nature. It does not impose a territorial or organisational limitation on which IC can conduct the inquiry.

Reading the provision otherwise, the Court noted, would defeat the social welfare objective of the POSH Act.


3. Broad Definition of ‘Workplace’ Supports This Expansion

The POSH Act defines “workplace”(4) expansively, covering not just physical offices but also any place visited during the course of employment. This broad definition supports the Court’s conclusion that ICC jurisdiction must be interpreted flexibly to reflect modern work environments and inter-organisational interactions.


4. Inquiry and Disciplinary Action Can Be Split

Importantly, the Court clarified that while the IC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace conducts the inquiry, any disciplinary action against the respondent must be carried out by the respondent’s employer, in accordance with applicable service or disciplinary rules. According to section 13 (5) of the act, the IC is required to submit its findings to the employer. Where the respondent is employed with a different organisation, such findings and recommendations can be forwarded to the employer of the respondent, who is then required to take appropriate action.  

This ensures procedural fairness, while preventing jurisdictional objections from obstructing inquiries.


Why This Judgment Matters

Strengthens Access to Justice

By allowing women to approach their own workplace IC, the ruling removes a major procedural barrier that could discourage reporting of sexual harassment.

Addresses Third-Party Sexual Harassment

The judgment has wide implications for cases involving vendors, consultants, clients, government officials, and employees of other organisations, a growing reality in today’s workplaces.

Reinforces the Intent of the POSH Act

The Court reaffirmed that the POSH Act must be interpreted as protective and remedial legislation, not as a technical statute that allows respondents to evade accountability.

Guidance for Employers and ICs

Organisations must now recognise that IC jurisdiction is not limited by payroll boundaries and ensure cooperation when employees are respondents in external IC inquiries.


Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant expansion of IC jurisdiction under the POSH Act, aligning legal interpretation with the lived realities of women at work. By prioritising access, dignity, and effective redressal over rigid jurisdictional formalities, the judgment strengthens India’s workplace sexual harassment framework and sets an important precedent for future cases but there are a few questions that remain unanswered and give us something to think about: 

  1. What happens when the external respondent’s employer refuses to implement action against the respondent ?

  2. What is the role of the Local Committee of each district when parties are from different employers?

For employers, IC members, and POSH practitioners, this ruling is a clear reminder: the focus of POSH compliance must remain on protection, not procedure but one must keep in mind the legislation still has a long way to go. 



Notes:

 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page