Published On: May 5, 2026
Authored By: Ojas Pakhle
Government Law College, Mumbai
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, commonly known as the POSH Act, was enacted with the objective of preventing and addressing sexual harassment of women at the workplace within a proper legal framework. The Act aims to protect the dignity of women at the workplace and to provide a safe and professional working environment.
The Act finds its roots in the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan[1] (1997), where the Court laid down guidelines for the safety of women at the workplace. The Court held that it is the duty of the employer to create an internal policy and to spread awareness regarding sexual harassment of women at the workplace. Parliament, drawing on these guidelines, enacted the POSH Act in 2013. The Act places responsibility on employers to create internal policies that ensure a safe and professional environment for women. It further mandates that every company or organisation with a workforce of more than ten employees must constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to address complaints of sexual harassment. Employers are also expected to create awareness through camps, warning posters, and other such measures.
The scope of the legislation is extensive. It covers not only organised-sector employees but also domestic workers and house helpers, through the establishment of Local Complaints Committees at the district level.
This article explores key judicial developments under the POSH Act from 2025 to the present. It provides a comprehensive summary of significant judgments and a brief account of the challenges in implementing the Act.
1. HCL Technologies Ltd v. Y[2]
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court held that under the POSH Act, what matters is the effect of the conduct, not the intention of the respondent.
Facts of the Case
HCL Technologies filed an appeal challenging an order of the Principal Labour Court, which had set aside the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee against one of its Assistant General Managers. The allegation against the manager was that he had harassed female employees by asking them uncomfortable questions relating to body measurements and their menstrual cycle. The ICC, upon investigation, found his behaviour inappropriate and recommended his removal from supervisory roles and disqualification from future pay hikes.
The Assistant General Manager challenged this recommendation before the Principal Labour Court, arguing that the ICC had not followed the principles of natural justice and had not afforded him a fair opportunity to be heard. The Labour Court accepted this argument and set aside the ICC’s recommendations.
HCL Technologies then challenged the Labour Court’s order in the High Court, contending that the respondent had been given a fair opportunity and that the Labour Court had failed to adequately appreciate the evidence on record. The respondent, for his part, argued that the measurements had been sought for a legitimate company purpose, to distribute coats to female employees, and that he had acted in his capacity as a supervisor.
Observations of the Court
The Madras High Court observed that the ICC had acted fairly and that the Labour Court’s interference was unwarranted. It noted that, given the manager’s seniority and experience, he ought to have performed his duties without causing embarrassment to the female employees. The Court held that the respondent’s conduct, being unwelcome and having made the women employees uncomfortable, fell squarely within the definition of sexual harassment under the Act. The Court stated:
“If something is not received well and it is inappropriate and felt as an unwelcome behaviour affecting the other sex, namely women, no doubt it would fall under the definition of ‘sexual harassment’.”[3]
Decision
The Court quashed the order of the Labour Court and allowed HCL Technologies’ plea.
Significance
This case is an important development in the jurisprudence under the POSH Act. It establishes the following key principles:
First, under the POSH Act, the emphasis is placed primarily on the effect and nature of the conduct in question, rather than on the respondent’s claimed intention, particularly where the conduct is found to be unwelcome and capable of causing discomfort to the aggrieved woman.
Second, the Court clarified that there is no fixed formula for procedural fairness in POSH proceedings. Courts and ICCs must maintain the privacy and confidentiality of victims. Companies and ICCs are free to adopt a procedure suited to the facts of each case, and the conduct of all parties during the proceedings is a relevant consideration.
2. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr.[4]
This is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, specifically addressing the question of jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act.
Facts of the Case
On 15 May 2023, a female IAS officer alleged that the appellant had sexually harassed her at her workplace in Krishi Bhawan, Delhi. She filed a criminal complaint against the appellant and also lodged a complaint before the ICC of her own department (Ministry of Food and Distribution).
At the time of the incident, the appellant was posted as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) at the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Department of Revenue), a different department from the complainant’s.
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the ICC before the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequently before the Delhi High Court. Both forums upheld the ICC’s jurisdiction as legally valid. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the ICC must be constituted at the respondent’s own workplace.
Observations and Decision
The Supreme Court interpreted the term “respondent” as used in Section 11 of the POSH Act and adopted a broad interpretation of the definition of “workplace” under Section 2(o). The Court held that:
The phrase “where the respondent is an employee” under Section 11 functions as a procedural trigger, not as a jurisdictional limitation confined to the ICC at the respondent’s own workplace. The legislative objective is not to restrict the powers of the ICC. Accordingly, a broad and purposive interpretation must be adopted: an ICC at the aggrieved woman’s workplace can validly exercise jurisdiction even where the respondent is employed in a different department.
The ICC is the primary investigating authority in matters of sexual harassment at the workplace. Restricting its jurisdiction would be contrary to the object and purpose of the POSH Act.
When a woman faces sexual harassment at her workplace, she is entitled to file a complaint with the ICC of her own department, regardless of whether the respondent belongs to the same department or a different one. The ICC may, after arriving at its findings, forward its recommendations to the respondent’s department for further action.
The appellant’s plea was accordingly rejected.
Critical Analysis
This judgment makes a significant contribution to the development of jurisprudence under the POSH Act. By adopting a wide, purposive interpretation of jurisdictional provisions, the Court ensures that procedural technicalities do not defeat the rights of the aggrieved woman, and reinforces the victim-centric framework of the Act. Permitting the complainant’s ICC to exercise jurisdiction, irrespective of where the respondent is employed, effectively closes jurisdictional loopholes that could otherwise be exploited. However, this broad interpretation may also give rise to concerns regarding procedural fairness for the respondent and the possibility of overlapping jurisdiction between multiple ICCs in future cases.
3. UNS Women Legal Association (Regd) v. Bar Council of India (PIL 16 of 2017) (December 2025)[5]
This judgment reflects a restrictive interpretation of the POSH Act, limiting its application in the absence of a clear employer–employee relationship. It highlights the need to address gaps in protection and to ensure more uniform application of the Act across diverse professional settings.
Facts of the Case
A Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction to all Bar Councils of Maharashtra and Goa, and to all State Bar Councils, to constitute Internal Complaints Committees to address sexual harassment faced by women advocates.
Judgment
The Court held that the provisions of the POSH Act would not apply, as there is no employer–employee relationship between advocates and Bar Councils. The Court clarified that a Bar Council is a statutory regulatory body and not an employer. It further noted that women advocates may seek remedies under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, as well as through applicable criminal law.
Critical Analysis
This judgment underscores the uneven application of the POSH Act across professions where the traditional employer–employee relationship is absent. It raises legitimate concerns about the limited reach of the Act in regulating professional bodies such as Bar Councils, leaving women in such sectors with reduced legal protection against workplace harassment. At the same time, the ruling reflects a strict and legally sound statutory interpretation. However, this approach may undermine the broader legislative objective of ensuring a safe and harassment-free environment across all forms of employment.
Critical Analysis and Conclusion
Judicial intervention, as reflected in cases such as HCL Technologies Ltd v. Y and Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., demonstrates the courts’ consistent effort to maintain procedural fairness while advancing a victim-centric approach. These judgments contribute to the gradual but meaningful development of jurisprudence under the POSH Act and strengthen its implementation.
Nevertheless, significant systemic challenges persist at the ground level. A key concern is the lack of awareness among employers and organisations, particularly MSMEs and small institutions, which frequently fail to constitute ICCs despite the statutory mandate. This non-compliance stems from a combination of social stigma, inadequate knowledge of the law, and disregard for compliance obligations. In some cases, organisations attempt to justify non-compliance by claiming the absence of a female workforce, based on the nature of their operations. The Supreme Court itself has lamented this state of affairs.[6]
Addressing these gaps requires not only robust judicial enforcement but also proactive regulatory oversight, targeted awareness campaigns, and legislative reform to ensure that the POSH Act fulfils its promise of a safe and dignified workplace for all women.
References
[1] Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241.
[2] HCL Technologies Ltd v. Y [2025] MHC 202.
[3] HCL Technologies Ltd v. Y (n 2) [33].
[4] Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India and Anr. [2025] INSC 1415.
[5] UNS Women Legal Association (Regd) v. Bar Council of India & Ors.
[6] ‘Sorry state of affairs: Supreme Court on lack of sexual harassment committees at workplace’, The Economic Times (2023) <https://m.economictimes.indiatimes.com/…> accessed 14 April 2026.
