Introduction 

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (commonly known as the POSH Act) was enacted to provide a healthy and dignified working environment free from hostility, for women by addressing and preventing incidents of sexual harassment. A cornerstone of this legislation is the establishment of Internal Committee (IC) in every organisation having 10 or more employees, vested with statutory powers to inquire into complaints, recommend appropriate action, and ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice. Over the years, the scope and jurisdiction of the IC have been clarified through judicial pronouncements, reinforcing its role as a quasi-judicial body empowered to safeguard workplace rights while balancing procedural fairness.  

In recent years, organizations have expressed challenges regarding complaints received. Sometimes, Sexual Harassment complaints may also be inclusive of workplace harassment. We have also noted receiving complaints which involve other inappropriate behaviour, interpersonal conflicts, or misconduct that may not have an explicit sexual element. Sometimes, the definition of the “workplace” has required to be understood in the context of a specific organisational set up. 

It is essential for IC members to understand the statutory boundaries of their authority as incorrectly taking up complaints with no Sexual Harassment components may inadvertently result in compromising with the rights of the Respondents, while not taking up genuine sexual harassment complaints may deny access to seek redressal to Complainants, and impact faith in the redressal systems at work. And taking up cases outside of the workplace context may expose organizations to legal challenges as well. 

The main objective of the article is to address the growing ambiguity surrounding the jurisdiction of the IC. This article seeks to examine the scope and limits of the IC’s jurisdiction under the POSH framework in the light of the recent judicial developments, along with renewed focus on these distinctions to ensure that complaints are handled lawfully, sensitively, and effectively. 

(*Disclaimer: all names used in the case study/scenarios below are fictitious) 

Scope & Powers Of The Internal Committee Under The Posh Act, 2013 

The constitution of an IC is mandated by the POSH Act, to resolve the complaints of sexual harassment and to ensure compliance with the objective of the law, which is to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace. 

The IC is a body that must be constituted in every organization having more than 10 employees to handle complaints of sexual harassment and to ensure that the workplace is safe and respectful for women. It has the authority to accept complaints within a specified time. The IC lets the Complainant know their rights to choose either Conciliation or an Inquiry. Upon choosing an Inquiry, the IC will have powers like that of a civil court, such as calling witnesses and asking for documents, and must follow basic rules of fairness by giving both sides a chance to be heard. Overall, the IC is meant to ensure that complaints are handled properly, fairly, and in line with the law. However, it is to be noted that the IC can initiate the wheels of Conciliation or Inquiry only in cases of allegations of Sexual Harassment. Therefore, in order to have an effectively functioning IC, the IC needs to have a thorough understanding of Jurisdiction, in the sense an understanding of what complaints can be taken up and what cannot.  

Exploring Internal Committee (IC) Jurisdiction  

When a complaint comes to the IC, they are required to ensure that it comes within their purview as defined by the POSH Act. This would involve ensuring several aspects including: confirming that the nature of the complaint falls under the definition of the Act, and that the context is the workplace and employee.  

1) Identifying the nature of the Complaint: 

Scenario 1: 

Ms. Santa* filed a complaint with the IC alleging that her manager has been targeting her because of her OBC background. He would often pass comments during meetings like, ‘I don’t think you will understand the value of this project as it requires a more forward-thinking perspective’. Ms. Santa finds such comments to be very demeaning and discriminatory and hence raised a complaint before the Internal Committee constituted under the POSH Act, 2013.  

Now the question before the IC is about whether they can entertain a complaint that, at face value, does not appear to be of ‘sexual harassment’ as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act? 

Scenario 2: 

During meetings, Mr. Sammy* (team lead), frequently interrupts Emilia* while she is speaking, dismissing her ideas with comments like “We’ve already tried that, it won’t work” without allowing her to explain. When Emilia presents data, Sammy sometimes jokes, “You must have spent all night on this, don’t you have a life?” in front of colleagues. Other team members notice that Sammy rarely interrupts male colleagues and often praises their contributions. And because of this sexist behaviour of Sammy, Emilia who feels undervalued and embarrassed, reports the situation with her HR hoping for some action to be taken against Mr. Sammy. The HR has forwarded this complaint to the IC.  

Now the question before the IC is to determine whether the reported situation is a case of sexual harassment under the POSH Act, 2013? 

The above-mentioned questions were addressed by the High Court of Kerala¹, when the petitioner, an employee of KSFE, challenged a notice issued by the IC in response to a complaint by a political union office-bearer who was not employed at the petitioner’s branch. The Complainant alleged before the IC that during an altercation, the petitioner had used abusive language and insulted her publicly. The petitioner however, contended that the allegations in the complaint were not of sexual nature and was therefore beyond the IC jurisdiction as per the POSH Act, 2013.  

Basis its examination, the court observed that as per Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, 2013, sexual harassment includes an unwelcome act or behaviour such as physical contact or advances, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, demand/request for sexual favours and any other unwelcome conduct of sexual nature. And since the allegation in the complaint was regarding the usage of abusive language used publicly which had no sexual connotation attached to it, the complaint did not meet the threshold of the definition of sexual harassment under Section 2(n). and opined that,  

“When the complaint/allegation does not constitute ‘sexual harassment ‘as defined under Section 2(n) of the POSH Act, 2013, the jurisdictional fact for taking cognizance on such a complaint and issuing notice to the petitioner is missing”. 

Thus, in the light of its above findings the court has clarified that an IC cannot proceed with the inquiry of a complaint without allegations of sexual harassment. Rather the IC can then, forward the complaint either to the human resource (HR) département or to any other grievance redressal committee established for the purpose of inquiring into complaints that are not sexual in nature.  

2) Unpacking ‘Workplace’ and ‘Employee’ 

Ms. Venus* and Mr. Shank* met during a 3-day national conference on sustainable development organised by their respective organisations. Mr. Shank began to make repeated personal comments toward Ms. Venus, such as remarks about her appearance and unsolicited invitations to meet outside the program. Despite Ms. Venus politely declining his offers, Mr. Shank continued sending messages late at night post the conference as well. Distressed & troubled by his behaviour, Ms. Venus files a sexual harassment complaint before the Internal committee of her organisation. 

Now the question before the IC was on whether they had the jurisdiction to inquire into sexual harassment complaints when the Respondent was an employee of another organisation? 

In yet another landmark case, the Appellant (a 2010 batch Indian Revenue Service Officer) challenged the proceeding of the IC with regards to a complaint filed be the aggrieved woman, (a 2004 batch Indian Administrative Service Officer) who was, at the relevant time, posted as Joint Secretary, Department of Food and Public Distribution. The aggrieved woman alleged that on 15.05.2023, the Appellant had sexually harassed her at her workplace and accordingly filed a complaint under the POSH Act which was presented before the IC at the aggrieved woman’s department, i.e., the Department of Food and Public Distribution on 24.05.2023².  

The Appellant raised a jurisdictional objection stating that the IC of the aggrieved woman’s department could not inquire into the complaint because as per Section 11, inquiry must be conducted “where the Respondent is an employee”. On appeal the Supreme Court has categorically held that the Respondent need not be an employee of the organisation where the IC is constituted. The definition of “Respondent” under Section 2(m) refers to “a person against whom the aggrieved woman has made a complaint” and is not restricted to an employee of the same workplace.  

The Court noted that the definitions of “employee” and “workplace” under the Act are neutral and do not require a shared employment relationship. The Act deliberately adopts a broad formulation to ensure effective redressal of sexual harassment complaints.  

Further, The Court rejected the contention that the Respondent and the Complainant must belong to the same organisation for the IC to exercise jurisdiction. The Court emphasised that limiting jurisdiction only to the Respondent’s organisation would defeat the object of the Act and create serious practical and psychological barriers for the Complainant. 

“Employer of the Respondent shall implement the Recommendations” 

The Court further clarified that the IC’s role is confined to fact-finding and making recommendations, while disciplinary authority rests with the employer of the Respondent. Section 13 of the Act expressly provides that the inquiry report shall be forwarded to the employer of the Respondent for appropriate action. However, the Supreme Court has not envisaged or mandated the constitution of a joint Internal Committee in cases where the Complainant and the Respondent belong to different organisations. 

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Internal Committee constituted at the Complainant’s workplace can exercise its statutory powers even where the Respondent and witnesses belong to another organisation. Section 11(3) of the POSH Act vests the IC with powers equivalent to those of a civil court for summoning persons, enforcing attendance, and requiring production of documents. These powers are statutory and are not dependent on the employment relationship between the parties and the organisation constituting the IC. The Court further held that under Section 13, the inquiry report and recommendations of the IC must be forwarded to the employer of the Respondent. The Respondent’s employer is statutorily bound to act upon such recommendations within sixty days. And in case where the employer fails to implement the recommendations, the aggrieved party may appeal within a period of 90 days of the recommendations.  

Conclusion   

The evolution of judicial interpretation around the POSH Act, 2013 has significantly strengthened the framework for workplace safety and accountability as it helps in promoting a balanced, transparent, and legally sound approach to sexual harassment grievance redressal in workplaces. By affirming the statutory powers of Internal Committees and clarifying their jurisdiction through various court judgments, courts have ensured that the Act remains both practical and protective in its interpretation. While the Kerala High Court underscored the importance of limiting IC inquiries strictly to complaints that meet the definition of sexual harassment under Section 2(n), the Supreme Court expanded the understanding of jurisdiction to include Respondents outside the Complainant’s organisation, thereby removing procedural barriers to justice and emphasizing on the Complainant’s perception of safety, comfort and dignity. Together, these rulings highlight the delicate balance between safeguarding due process and empowering women to seek redress without fear or limitation. Ultimately, the POSH Act and its Internal Committees stand as vital instruments in fostering workplaces built on dignity, equality, and respect. 

FAQs 

Written by Adv. KPS Vasantha, Adv. Delhi Chandana & Adv. Vamsi Mohana Reviewed by Rosanna Rodrigues