Supreme Court Clarifies Internal Committee (IC) Jurisdiction Under the PoSH Act: A Landmark Ruling for Women at Work

Rainmaker December 24, 2025 Prevention of Sexual Harassment 4 min read

In a significant and progressive interpretation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“PoSH Act”), the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., has clarified an important jurisdictional issue that had long caused uncertainty for employers, Internal Committees (ICs), and aggrieved women alike.

The Court has authoritatively held that a woman can approach the Internal Committee of her own workplace even if the alleged respondent is employed in a different organisation or department.

This ruling reinforces the survivor-centric intent of the PoSH Act and ensures that procedural technicalities do not become barriers to justice.

Background of the Case

The dispute in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr. arose from a complaint of sexual harassment filed by a senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer. The alleged respondent was an Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer, employed in a different government department.

The incident occurred in a workplace context, and the aggrieved woman chose to file her complaint before the Internal Committee constituted at her own department.

The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of this IC on the ground that:

He was not an employee of the complainant’s department, and
Therefore, only the Internal Committee of his own department could conduct the inquiry under the PoSH Act.

This jurisdictional objection was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, and subsequently by the Delhi High Court. The respondent then approached the Supreme Court of India, leading to the final ruling in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., which conclusively settled the legal position on IC jurisdiction.

The Central Legal Issue

The core question before the Supreme Court was:

Does the PoSH Act restrict the jurisdiction of an Internal Committee only to cases where both the complainant and the respondent belong to the same workplace or organisation?

The Supreme Court answered this question with a clear “No.”

What the Supreme Court Held

1. The IC at the Aggrieved Woman’s Workplace Has Jurisdiction

In Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., the Supreme Court held that the Internal Committee of the aggrieved woman’s workplace has the jurisdiction to:

Receive the complaint, and
Conduct the inquiry under Section 11 of the PoSH Act,

even if the respondent is employed in a different department, organisation, or workplace.

The Court observed that compelling a woman to approach the IC of another organisation would:

Create unnecessary procedural and psychological barriers,
Discourage reporting of sexual harassment, and
Undermine the protective purpose of the PoSH Act.

The Act, the Court emphasised, must be interpreted in a manner that enhances access to justice, not restricts it.

2. Interpretation of “Where the Respondent Is an Employee”

The respondent’s principal argument in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr. was based on the wording of Section 11 of the PoSH Act, which refers to cases “where the respondent is an employee.”

The Supreme Court rejected this narrow construction and clarified that:

The phrase does not mean that the respondent must be an employee of the same workplace as the complainant.
The PoSH Act does not impose any jurisdictional limitation on Internal Committees based on shared employment.

A restrictive reading, the Court held, would be inconsistent with:

The expansive definition of “workplace” under the PoSH Act, and
The Act’s objective of addressing sexual harassment in modern, inter-connected work environments.

3. Distinction Between Inquiry and Disciplinary Action

A critical clarification in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr. relates to the respective roles of the Internal Committee and the employer.

The Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between:

The inquiry and fact-finding role of the Internal Committee, and
The disciplinary authority of the employer.

The Court clarified that:

The IC at the complainant’s workplace is empowered to conduct the inquiry and record its findings.
If the allegations are substantiated, the employer of the respondent — even if different — is required to act on the IC’s recommendations and initiate appropriate disciplinary action.

This distinction ensures that jurisdictional objections do not derail inquiries, while preserving the employer’s authority over disciplinary matters.

4. Duty of Employers to Cooperate with the IC

The Supreme Court, in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., also reaffirmed the statutory obligations of employers under Section 19 of the PoSH Act.

Even where the respondent belongs to another organisation or department:

The employer is duty-bound to cooperate with the Internal Committee,
Provide relevant information and assistance, and
Facilitate a fair and timely inquiry.

Organisational or departmental boundaries, the Court noted, cannot be used to obstruct the PoSH redressal process.

Why This Judgment Matters

✔ Enhances Access to Justice

Women are no longer required to approach unfamiliar Internal Committees in other organisations to seek redressal.

✔ Reflects Contemporary Workplace Realities

The ruling acknowledges that workplace interactions often extend beyond a single organisation or department.

✔ Provides Clarity for ICs and Employers

Internal Committees now have clear judicial guidance on handling inter-departmental and inter-organisational sexual harassment complaints.

✔ Reinforces the Spirit of the PoSH Act

The judgment prioritises dignity, accessibility, and protection, aligning legal interpretation with legislative intent.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr. is a strong reaffirmation of the PoSH Act’s foundational principle:
the law must work for the aggrieved woman, not against her.

By holding that a woman can approach the Internal Committee of her own workplace even when the respondent is employed elsewhere, the Court has ensured that PoSH redressal mechanisms remain effective, humane, and meaningful.For employers, IC members, and compliance professionals, this judgment is a timely reminder that PoSH compliance is not merely procedural — it is a responsibility grounded in dignity, trust, and justice.