Rethinking the Boundaries of the Workplace: What the Bombay High Court’s Recent Judgment Says About IC Jurisdiction

Summary of the case

On 24 March 2023, Satpute, an SBI employee, was commuting to work from Kurla to BKC in a shared autorickshaw. Of the three passengers seated in the back, one was a woman who later alleged that Satpute had touched her inappropriately during the journey.

The complainant called the police, following which Satpute was escorted to the BKC Police station,  where a case was registered against him under Section 354A of IPC(now Section 75 of the BNS, 2023). The complainant also filed a complaint with the ICC at her organisation, who in turn forwarded the complaint to SBI. SBI’s ICC conducted an inquiry and passed an order on 29 August 2023, finding him guilty of the reported sexual harassment. The Committee recommended the organisation take disciplinary action against him under its Service Rules. 

On 28 November 2023, Satpute appealed against the IC order internally ultimately giving rise to the proceedings in Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors. In his account of the incident, due to the autorickshaw being crowded and the bad condition of the roads, his hand may have brushed against the complainant’s bag a few times which he claimed was interpreted as assault by the complainant. Anand Pande, his legal counsel, submitted the following arguments in view of the alleged sexual harassment incident:

1. Since the alleged incident did not occur at Satpute’s workplace, i.e., SBI, the company’s IC did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, conduct an enquiry and pass an Order under the Sexual Harassment Act. 
2. “Workplace”, as defined under Section 2(o) of THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE (PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL) ACT, 2013, includes only transportation provided by the employer for undertaking the journey to any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment. Since the petitioner was travelling by a public transport, and not a vehicle provided by the employer, the alleged incident did not take place in a “workplace”

The Bombay High Court subsequently directed SBI not to pass the final order without the Court’s permission. On June 16 2026, the HC ultimately set aside the IC’s order. One thing to note is that the HC did not pass a judgement on whether Satpute was guilty. Its decision was limited to the fact that SBI’s IC did not hold jurisdiction to entertain and pass an order on the alleged case. 

What is an Extended Workplace?

An extended workplace acknowledges that a workplace is not restricted to physical or geographical locations, it can be any setting beyond the traditional workplace where an employee’s action has sufficient connection to their employment.

The idea behind an extended workplace predates the POSH Act. We see its roots in the Vishaka guidelines as well, where the Supreme Court acknowledged that sexual harassment could occur beyond the traditional office setting. The POSH Act 2013 took this a step further and expanded on what constitutes a workplace. As per the Act, workplace includes “any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment including transportation provided by the employer for the undertaking of the journey”

Yet, the broad definition evidently has room for improvement. As seen in the Autorickshaw case, even though Satpute was travelling to work, the case did not fall under the IC’s jurisdiction, since the transport vehicle was not provided by the employer. This raises a question, how far does the POSH framework extend outside the physical workspace to protect an employee?

Sexual harassment in any of the following extended workplace settings has fallen under the Internal Committee’s jurisdiction: 

1. Employer-provided travel
2. A person from a completely different organisation/department
3. Work From Home: Virtual workspaces like online meetings, communication channels (official chats, emails, video meetings)
4. Company-sponsored events: parties, annual days, off-sites, Conferences, seminars, exhibitions
5. Business travel (flights, hotels during official trips)

The above list is not exhaustive. Due to the broad nature of the POSH Act, many different situations and settings can fall under the framework. Due to complexities and the various ways sexual misconduct may occur, it is perhaps a plus that the definitions are broad enough to take into consideration the personal experience of the aggrieved woman. 

In Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court proceeded to adopt a broad interpretation of the Act, where the complainant was an IAS officer working in the Department of Food and Public Distribution while the respondent worked in the Department of Revenue as an IRS officer. The Supreme Court, in this case, judged that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the IC. This broad interpretation of the law and the judgement that the boundaries of the workplace extend beyond organisations and departments reinforce the need for an expansive understanding of workplace protection under the POSH Act. 

Yet, on the other hand, we see cases such as Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India, demonstrate the limitations of this broad framework. The judgment brings forth the clash between interpreting the law according to its protective purpose and strictly following the statutory definitions used.

Thus, we identify a policy gap that exists between the letter of the law and social realities of the workplace. A strong legal architecture needs to be developed for the protection of women and ensuring that their dignity is maintained. 

With the emergence of online workplaces post-COVID, it has become ever more urgent that this gap is addressed. The traditional definitions of a workplace may not be sufficient enough to cover our evolving workspaces. With people working across physical offices, homes, and even public spaces, the legal framework protecting the employees must evolve too. We must identify the boundaries and restructure laws where needed so that clear definitions can provide both consistency and relevant flexibility to protect affected employees.

Ultimately, now that workplaces are changing, the laws protecting us must be reconsidered too. POSH is a law that was formulated to protect the dignity and equal rights of women at workplaces, and to protect that, we must reassess our laws and update them according to the changing landscape. 

Written by: Syed Tatheer Raza Imam