The Expanding Reach Of The POSH Act: Same-Sex Harassment, Virtual Workplaces And Inter Departmental Accountability

1) Introduction – POSH as an Evolving Statute

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (the "POSH Act") represents a landmark initiative enacted to fill a legislative vacuum in safeguarding dignity and rights of persons in professional workplaces. The objective of the POSH Act is two-fold, providing redressal to women who are subject to harassment, and preventing and prohibiting harassment in the workplace.

More than a decade after its enactment, the framework of the POSH Act continues to evolve through nuanced judicial interpretation of the regulatory framework. With time, the judiciary has sought to bridge the gap between legislative intent and its practical application.

2) Substantive Expansion of the POSH Act

a) Same Sex Harassment

Under Section 2(a) of the POSH Act, the definition of an "aggrieved woman" means in relation to a workplace, a woman of any age, whether employed or not in the organization, and alleges to have been subjected to an act of sexual harassment. An aggrieved woman, in relation to a dwelling place or house, is a woman of any age who is employed in such a house or dwelling place.

While an aggrieved party under the POSH Act can only be a woman, a complaint against sexual harassment may be raised against both a male and a female employee. Evidencing this understanding, is the case of Malabika Bhattacharjee v. ICC, Vivekananda College & Others,¹ where the Hon'ble High Court ("HC") of Calcutta has held that same-sex harassment complaints are maintainable under the POSH Act. The HC of Calcutta, while interpreting the definition of "sexual harassment" under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, adopted a purposive approach in view of the dynamic Indian society. The court observed that the POSH Act pertains to the dignity of a person which relates to his or her gender and equality and does not contemplate that any person of the same gender cannot hurt the modesty or dignity under the POSH Act, thereby clarifying that the term "respondent" is not gender specific.

The recognition of same-sex harassment under POSH Act underscores the judiciary's understanding that dignity and equality are not contingent upon the gender binary, and that the protective ambit of the social welfare legislation must extend to all forms of harassment that affect workplace dignity.

b) Extension of "Workplace" to Virtual / Digital Spaces

The definition of a "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the POSH Act is broad and inclusive in nature.

It covers government departments, private organizations, hospitals and nursing homes, sports institutes, dwelling place or house, or any place visited by the employee during the course of employment. The intention behind having a wide definition of "workplace" under the POSH Act has always been to ensure that the law encompasses any environment or area in which a woman may be subjected to the act of sexual harassment in relation to her employment.

Pertinently, as the professional world transcends physical boundaries and migrates into digital interfaces, Indian courts have proactively expanded the definition of "workplace" to align with modern work modalities. In Dr. Amit Kumar v. University of Delhi, ² the HC of Delhi inter alia dealt with allegations of sexual harassment perpetrating through interactions between the petitioner and Complainant No. 1 on social media platforms such as Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp in their personal time, and addressed a pivotal contention raised by the petitioner - whether such communications could constitute conduct at the "workplace" for the purposes of the POSH framework. The HC of Delhi observed that the redressal mechanism against sexual harassment, is vested in all individuals and flows from the fundamental rights to life and dignity prescribed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also recognized power dynamics inherent in workplace harassment and the real deterrents faced by subordinates contemplating complaints against superiors. Accordingly, the HC, held that the petitioner's stance is devoid of merit and upheld the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee i.e., the petitioner himself sent Complainant No. 1 a friend request on Facebook, and any subsequent interaction on social media platforms became an extension of the work relationship, given the petitioner was not a "personal friend" of the Complainant No. 1.

Hence, the HC of Delhi's decision in Dr. Amit's ruling recognizes that power dynamics and workplace hierarchies extend beyond physical office spaces into digital interactions, particularly where such interactions arise from or are extensions of professional relationships.

c) Inter-Departmental Complaints

The case of Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India and Ors.³ revolved around the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the POSH Act, in which the appellant contended that the jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee to inquire into complaint of sexual harassment is limited to "where respondent is an employee" i.e., the respondent's workplace. The petitioner argued that issuing notice under Section 11(1) is not maintainable as he is not an employee of the complainant's department. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ("SC") adopted a purposive interpretation that where the meaning of statutory language is capable of more than one interpretation, such language must be construed in a manner that advances the object and purpose of the statute, particularly when the legislation in question is a social welfare statute such as the POSH Act. The SC held that

1. The definition of an employer under Section 2(m) of the POSH Act must be read expansively to include the employer of the department where the alleged perpetrator of sexual harassment is working, not merely the employer of the aggrieved woman.
2. The above interpretation is with due regard to Section 13(3)(i) of the POSH Act, which expressly provides that where the IC concludes that allegations against the respondent are proved, there is "no embargo" on the IC's findings being forwarded to the employer of the respondent (who has disciplinary control over the alleged perpetrator), even if that employer is different from the complainant's employer.

This interpretation ensures that inter-departmental complaints are not defeated on jurisdictional grounds and reinforces that the POSH framework cannot be circumvented through organizational or departmental silos, thereby safeguarding accountability across departmental boundaries.

3) Conclusion

The jurisprudence emerging under the POSH Act reflects the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that workplace protection against sexual harassment evolves in tandem with changing societal norms and work environments. These judicial pronouncements discussed above demonstrate three critical trends:

1. First, courts have adopted an expansive and purposive approach to interpreting the scope of the POSH Act, recognizing that harassment can occur irrespective of the gender of the respondent.
2. Second, the judicial expansion of the concept of "workplace" to include digital and virtual spaces, which is a timely and critical development in view of professional interactions increasingly occurring through digital mediums, particularly in the post-pandemic era of remote and hybrid working across various industries in India, thereby ensuring that the POSH Act framework is not rendered obsolete by technological advancement.
3. Third, the SC's interpretation that the employer of the respondent can and must take cognizance of complaints, even when the complainant belongs to a different department, reinforces accountability, and additionally ensures that the statutory mechanism for redressal of sexual harassment complaints under POSH Act is not frustrated by technical or jurisdictional challenges.

These judicial developments collectively reflect a progressive and victim-centric interpretation of the POSH Act, prioritizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities. The emerging jurisprudential trend demonstrates that Indian courts advancing it's the object of the POSH Act i.e. creating safe, dignified, and equitable workplaces for all persons. That said, it is also important to note that as the law continues to evolve, employers and Internal Complaints Committees must remain vigilant in implementing these principles whilst also ensuring procedural fairness and natural justice to all parties involved. As the POSH Act continues to mature, collectively, both legislative amendments and continued judicial guidance will be essential to ensure that the statute remains efficient and responsive to the evolving nature of workplace relationships and harassment.

Footnotes

1. Dr. Malabika Bhattacharjee vs. Internal Complaints Committee, Vivekananda College & Ors. (27.11.2020 - Cal HC) : W.P.A. 9141 of 2020

2. Dr. Amit Kumar vs. University of Delhi (17.07.2025 - Del HC) : W.P.(C) 586/2021

3. Sohail Malik vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (10.12.2025 - SC) : MANU/SC/1656/2025.