To uphold the objectives and intent of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition And Redressal) Act, 2013[1] (“POSH Act”), the Supreme Court of India through its authoritative judgement dated 10th December, 2025[2] ruled that the Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”) constituted under the POSH Act at the aggrieved woman’s workplace will have legitimate jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into a sexual harassment complaint even if the Appellant is employed by a different employer.
This ruling specifically focused on the terms, workplace, employer, employee as enshrined under the POSH Act and the provisions relating to Complaint of sexual harassment[3] and inquiry into compliant[4].
In the instant case of Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr[5], the appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the ICC stating that the ICC constituted by the department of the aggrieved woman did not have the authority to initiate proceedings against him since he was employed by a different department of the Central Government.
In response, the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) adopted a purposive interpretation of the POSH Act, underlining that the statute must be construed in a manner that advances its remedial and protective objectives. The Court clarified that the provisions governing the conduct of an inquiry do not mandate that the aggrieved woman and the respondent be employed within the same department for the ICC to assume jurisdiction. Emphasis was also placed on [6]Section 13 of the Act, which empowers the ICC, upon concluding that sexual harassment is established, to recommend appropriate action to the respondent’s employer or the concerned District Officer in accordance with the applicable service rules.
The material question which was of utmost importance in this case was “Whether the ICC constituted in a department of the Central Government is competent to entertain a complaint of sexual harassment under the POSH Act against an employee belonging to a different department of the Central Government?”
During the contentions, the legislative intent and background of the POSH Act was stressed upon by the Court. Reference to the historic judgement delivered in the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[7] was drawn as well which prompted the enactment of the POSH Act.
Additionally, the expansive definition of the term [8]‘workplace’ as provided under the POSH Act was taken into consideration to highlight the importance of interpreting the provisions of the POSH Act broadly. It was mentioned that a narrow interpretation of provisions of the POSH Act, in order to hold that only the ICC of the workplace of the ‘respondent’ has jurisdiction to inquire into complaints against him (irrespective of where the workplace of the aggrieved woman is or where the alleged act of sexual harassment took place) defeats the purpose of the POSH Act and undermines its remedial social welfare intent.
Conclusion
Though this decision has brought much-needed clarity on the jurisdiction of the ICC and expanded the ambit of the term “workplace” to include any place visited by an employee arising out of or during the course of employment, the factual matrix of the case is restricted to departments functioning under the control of the Central Government. Such government departments often operate within an interlaced administrative framework, facilitating coordination and oversight. This institutional interlinkage does not exist in the private sector, where organisations function independently, making questions of jurisdiction and procedure more complex in comparison.
While this ruling will serve as an important precedent for private organisations, its true impact will depend on how effectively employers translate its principles into practice. The seamless implementation of the POSH Act requires organisations to adopt a survivor-centric approach, ensuring that the ICCs are properly constituted and trained, and competent to provide redressal to legitimate complaints. Employers must also comply with the provisions of the POSH Act to spread awareness about the expanded scope of “workplace” and “employee.” Ultimately, duty to give full effect to the law’s purpose and guarantee substantive relief to every aggrieved woman will rest upon the true intention of the employer.
To stay updated with the similar case-laws as well as the evolving regulatory requirements in India, companies can subscribe to Komrisk, our comprehensive Compliance Management Software. Designed to simplify complex compliance landscapes, Komrisk leverages automated tools to help organisations systematically identify potential instances of non-compliance, monitor statutory obligations in a clear and actionable format, and assign internal accountability. The platform enhances transparency through structured tracking, timely alerts, and detailed compliance dashboards, enabling informed decision-making at every level. In addition, we closely monitor significant judicial pronouncements and regulatory orders, ensuring that our clients remain proactively updated and well-prepared to adapt to emerging legal changes.
[1] https://doe.gov.in/files/inline-documents/DoE_Prevention_sexual_harassment.pdf
[2] https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/26792/26792_2023_3_1501_66764_Judgement_10-Dec-2025.pdf
[3] https://doe.gov.in/files/inline-documents/DoE_Prevention_sexual_harassment.pdf
[4] https://doe.gov.in/files/inline-documents/DoE_Prevention_sexual_harassment.pdf
[5] https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/26792/26792_2023_3_1501_66764_Judgement_10-Dec-2025.pdf
[6] Inquiry report.—(1) On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within a period of ten days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties.
(2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter.
(3) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be—
(i) to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent or where no such service rules have been made, in such manner as may be prescribed; (ii) to deduct, notwithstanding anything in the service rules applicable to the respondent, from the salary or wages of the respondent such sum as it may consider appropriate to be paid to the aggrieved woman or to her legal heirs, as it may determine, in accordance with the provisions of section 15:
Provide that in case the employer is unable to make such deduction from the salary of the respondent due to his being absent from duty or cessation of employment it may direct to the respondent to pay such sum to the aggrieved woman:
Provided further that in case the respondent fails to pay the sum referred to in clause (ii), the Internal Committee or as, the case may be, the Local Committee may forward the order for recovery of the sum as an arrear of land revenue to the concerned District Officer.
(4) The employer or the District Officer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty days of its receipt by him
[7] https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/13856.pdf
[8] “workplace” includes— (i) any department, organisation, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or unit which is established, owned, controlled or wholly or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government or the local authority or a Government company or a corporation or a co-operative society;
(ii) any private sector organisation or a private venture, undertaking, enterprise, institution, establishment, society, trust, non-governmental organisation, unit or service provider carrying on commercial, professional, vocational, educational, entertainmental, industrial, health services or financial activities including production, supply, sale, distribution or service;
(iii) hospitals or nursing homes;
(iv) any sports institute, stadium, sports complex or competition or games venue, whether residential or not used for training, sports or other activities relating thereto;
(v) any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment including transportation by the employer for undertaking such journey;
(vi) a dwelling place or a house; (p) “unorganised sector” in relation to a workplace means an enterprise owned by individuals or self-employed workers and engaged in the production or sale of goods or providing service of any kind whatsoever, and where the enterprise employs workers, the number of such workers is less than ten
Authored by: Sarnindita Chatterjee
Co-authored by: Amiya Mukherjee
Disclaimer
This content is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute a legal opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek legal counsel prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein. Despite our efforts to maintain accuracy, we do not make representations, warranties or undertakings regarding the quality, completeness or reliability of the content. This content, including the design, text, graphics, their selection and arrangement, is Copyright 2025, Lexplosion Solutions Private Limited or its licensors. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, and all moral rights are asserted and reserved.
For any clarifications, please reach out to us at 91-33-40618083 or inquiries@lexplosion.in. Refer to our privacy policy by clicking here.