Beyond Organisational Boundaries: Supreme Court On Functional Scope of IC's Under The Posh Act

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) was enacted to safeguard a woman’s fundamental right to work with dignity. While most organisations today are aware of the law, practical challenges often arise not from lack of intent to comply, but from misunderstandings around how the POSH Act operates in real and complex workplace situations.

One recurring issue revolves around whether an Internal Committee (“IC”) can inquire into allegations against a respondent (person accused of sexual harassment) who is not employed by the same organisation or department as the complainant. This question was squarely addressed by the Supreme Court in Sohail Malik v. Union of India[1].

Background

The appellant, an IRS officer, challenged the jurisdiction of the IC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman, an IAS officer, on the ground that he was employed in a different department at the relevant time. While criminal proceedings were also initiated, the appeal before the Supreme Court was inter alia confined to whether the IC at the complainant’s workplace could inquire into the complaint under the POSH Act.

The appellant argued that jurisdiction lay exclusively with the IC constituted by his own department as his employer and disciplinary authority, relying on Section 11 of the POSH Act, particularly the phrase “where the Respondent is an employee”, to assert a workplace-based limitation. This contention was rejected by both the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

How The Supreme Court Reads Section 11

At the heart of the case was how Section 11 of the POSH Act should be understood. The Supreme Court clarified that when the law says “where the respondent is an employee”, it is not talking about location. Instead, it simply means “if the respondent is an employee”.

In other words, Section 11 does not decide which IC can hear a complaint. It only explains how the inquiry should be conducted, depending on who the respondent is, an employee, someone without formal service rules, or a domestic worker. The provision lays down a process, not a jurisdiction.

Same Workplace Not Required

The Supreme Court also clarified that the POSH Act does not require the complainant and the respondent to work in the same organisation. The law defines “workplace” very broadly and recognises that work-related interactions often happen outside a single office or an employer’s control.

As a result, an IC set up at the complainant’s workplace can validly investigate a complaint even if the respondent belongs to another department or organisation.

What Happens After The IC Inquiry

To address concerns about enforcement, the Supreme Court drew a simple line:

a. The IC’s role is to investigate the complaint and record findings, and

b. The respondent’s employer’s role is to take disciplinary action, if required.

Under the POSH Act, the IC sends its findings to the respondent’s employer, who must act on them within a fixed timeframe. The law does not require both parties to have the same employer.

For government employees, the Court noted that this fits within the existing framework: first, a fact-finding inquiry under POSH, and then disciplinary action by the respondent’s department, if the allegations are found to be true.

Why This Decision Matters

This judgment removes a major procedural hurdle that could otherwise discourage complaints. It prevents organisations from avoiding responsibility through technical objections, reinforces the woman-centric purpose of the POSH Act, and provides clear guidance for workplaces dealing with cross-organisation complaints.

Conclusion

By prioritising access to redressal over rigid technicalities, the Supreme Court has strengthened the POSH framework. The decision ensures that complaints of sexual harassment are examined on their merits, through a practical and workable process that reflects the realities of modern workplaces.

[1] MANU/SC/1656/2025