- within Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration and Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in European Union
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Advertising & Public Relations and Banking & Credit industries
Overview:
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("PoSH Act") mandates the constitution of an Internal Committee ("IC") as the primary statutory mechanism for preventing, prohibiting, and redressing instances of sexual harassment in the workplace. While the legislative text sets out the statutory framework, recent judicial pronouncements have significantly shaped how ICs should function in practice, lending clarity to questions of jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and the purpose of the legislation. Indeed, the PoSH Act, as a social welfare statute, has been interpreted in light of constitutional imperatives of equality, dignity, and access to justice, thereby elevating IC compliance to a central governance concern for employers across sectors.
A Quasi-Judicial Character and IC's Jurisdiction
One of the defining attributes of an IC under the PoSH Act is its quasi-judicial character. The statute empowers the IC to receive complaints, examine evidence including witness testimony and documents, conduct inquiries in accordance with principles of natural justice, and render reasoned findings on whether harassment has occurred. While the IC does not impose criminal penalties, its recommendations carry binding force on the employer.
In a watershed decision delivered on December 10, 2025, in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr1 where the complainant and respondent worked in different departments having their own ICs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India expressly rejected the contention that jurisdiction must lie only with the IC of the respondent's own workplace, observing that such a restrictive interpretation would undermine the remedial and welfare intent of the statute by introducing procedural barriers for complainants.
The judgment clarified that the words "where the respondent is an employee" in Section 11(1) of the PoSH Act are procedural triggers for applying service rules, not limitations on the IC's jurisdiction. Accordingly, the IC of the complainant's workplace may validly conduct the inquiry, and its report must be transmitted to the respondent's employer for further action in accordance with applicable service rules.
This interpretation reinforces a purposive reading of the PoSH Act, emphasising accessible and effective redress for the complainants without undue procedural hurdles. The broad definition of "workplace" under Section 2(o), which includes any place visited by the employee in the course of employment, further supports this expansive jurisdictional view.
B. Enforcement and Consequences of Non-Compliance
Judicial scrutiny has also extended to employer obligations in constituting functional ICs. In Global Health Private Limited v. Local Complaints Committee, District Indore, the Madhya Pradesh High Court 2underscored the mandatory nature of IC constitution under Section 4 of the PoSH Act, holding that failure to constitute an IC attracts both statutory penalties and remedial obligations. While the respondent in that case challenged enforcement directions, courts have stressed that statutory compliance with IC constitution and functioning is non-negotiable, with penalties imposed for lacunae in compliance and for failing to provide a safe workplace as envisaged under the statute.
Across jurisdictions, courts have reiterated that statutory deadlines and procedural integrity are integral to sustaining IC findings. Even where procedural lapses occur such as delays in completing inquiry within the prescribed 90 (ninety) day period, higher courts have held that such defects alone will not automatically vitiate proceedings, provided inquiries are carried out responsibly and to their logical conclusion in the interest of both parties.
C. Jurisprudential Trends on Procedural Fairness
The judiciary has been vigilant in upholding procedural fairness in IC proceedings. In Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., the Hon'ble Supreme Court stressed that an IC's factual inquiry must be conducted neutrally, in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The bifurcated process fact finding by an IC at the complainant's workplace and disciplinary action by the employer of the respondent has been upheld as consistent with the statutory scheme and the purpose of ensuring clarity, fairness, and enforceability.
This jurisprudential approach reinforces that while the IC has quasi-judicial powers, it must act within the framework of statutory objectivity, procedural fairness, and the constitutional mandate to uphold dignity and equality in the workplace.
Furthermore, in another recent judgment from 2025 rendered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in X v. State of Gujarat & Ors3, the Court upheld that the interim measures provided to the complainant by the IC during the pendency of the inquiry may be extended even after the conclusion of the inquiry, contingent upon the severity and circumstances of the case.
This landmark judgment further reinforces that the stringent provisions of the POSH Act, particularly in relation to the implementation of Section 12, should be evaluated in light of the specific facts of the case and the ongoing impact on the complainant.
D. Broader Jurisdictional and Procedural Clarifications
Judicial engagement with the PoSH Act spans a range of interpretative issues beyond jurisdiction. Courts have emphasised that definitions under the Act such as "employee" and "workplace" must be read expansively to achieve the protective purpose of the legislation without artificial limitations. Similarly, courts have clarified that procedural safeguards such as confidentiality, natural justice, and unbiased inquiry are not optional but integral to IC proceedings' legitimacy.
While the PoSH Act's core is statutory, its historical roots and the judicial precedents, continue to build the foundation for addressing sexual harassment complaints at workplace, and reinforce the constitutional context of safety and dignity.
E. Digital Compliance and Centralised Oversight: SHe-Box Registration
In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent directions on structural PoSH compliance, the regulatory landscape has moved beyond intra-organisation IC governance to embrace a centralised, digital oversight mechanism through SHe-Box (Sexual Harassment Electronic Box), operated by the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD).
Initially launched in 2017 as an online complaint mechanism for women employees (in government and, later, in the private sector), SHe-Box primarily served as a route for forwarding complaints to the relevant IC or Local Committee. This has evolved from a mere online complaint window into an integrated compliance and monitoring infrastructure, with a growing emphasis on registration of Internal Committees (ICs) and systematic reporting.
In Initiatives for Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India & Ors4., the Supreme Court issued extensive directions to Union and State Governments to operationalise the PoSH framework end-to-end, including appointment of District Officers, constitution of Local Committees, and the creation of structured mechanisms for data collection, annual reporting, and monitoring of ICs across sectors.
These directions, read together with Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa & Ors5., where the Court underscored that the constitution and functioning of Complaints Committees is not a mere formality but a binding requirement rooted in the Vishaka guidelines and the 2013 statute,
Pursuant to MWCD's upgraded SHe-Box framework and follow-up directions issued in 2025 n the aftermath of the Supreme Court's compliance orders, registration of ICs on the SHe-Box portal has now been made compulsory in practice, with specified timelines and with an explicit linkage to PoSH compliance status and disclosure of PoSH Trainings Conducted (IC Training as well employee awareness).
Failure to register on She-Box is being tracked by authorities as a non-compliance under Sections 19 and 26 of the PoSH Act which makes this a crucial action point for employers.
Conclusion
The evolving jurisprudence under the PoSH Act reflects a judicial commitment to preserving the statute's remedial and social welfare objectives, while clarifying procedural and jurisdictional contours that impact the enforceability of IC findings. Employers must therefore approach IC compliance not as a formalistic exercise but as a substantive governance mandate, ensuring that committees are properly constituted, independent, procedurally fair, and capable of conducting legally defensible inquiries.
By integrating statutory compliance with judicial expectations, organisations can not only mitigate legal risk but also foster workplace environments that truly uphold dignity, safety, and respect. In an era of heightened legal scrutiny and social accountability, such alignment is essential to organisational integrity and long-term resilience.
Footnotes
1. Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2024, Supreme Court of India, 2025 INSC 1415 (10 Dec. 2025)
2. Global Health Private Limited and Ors. v. Local Complaints Committee, District Indore, Writ Petition Nos. 22317 & 22314 of 2017 (High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench)
3. X v. State of Gujarat & Ors, Special Civil Application 12345/2025, (High Court of Gujarat)
4. Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India & Ors, (2024)1 SCC 779
5. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa & Ors, MANU/SCOR/37313/2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
