Global Headquarter - Unit no 3 & 7, Shanti Nagar Industrial Estate,
Vakola, Santacruz East, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400055
The 10 December 2025 ruling of the Supreme Court of India is an important POSH update that every employer must know and understand. The Court delivered a landmark clarification under the POSH Act, 2013, directly impacting how organizations should handle sexual harassment complaints, particularly where the complainant and respondent belong to different departments, offices, or organizations.
Modern workplaces involve cross-functional teams, inter-office meetings, trainings, official travel, and virtual interactions. Harassment does not stop at departmental boundaries. As a protector, redressal must move beyond boundaries and departments — and now, the law clearly reflects this reality.
The Supreme Court of India authoritatively clarified the scope of jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Court held that the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman is competent to entertain and inquire into a complaint even when the respondent is employed in a different department or workplace.
The ruling settles a key question under the POSH Act concerning inter-departmental sexual harassment complaints within government service and reinforces the objective of the statute as a social welfare legislation intended to provide effective and accessible redressal to aggrieved women.
Before the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequently before the High Court and the Supreme Court, the appellant raised a jurisdictional objection. He contended that the ICC constituted in the department of the complainant could not entertain a complaint against him as he was not an employee of that department, and that the complaint ought to have been filed before the ICC of his own department.
Rejecting this contention, the Court examined the scheme of the POSH Act, particularly Sections 9, 11, 13 and 19. The Court held that under Section 9, any aggrieved woman may make a complaint to the ICC constituted at her workplace. Once such a complaint is made, any person against whom the complaint is filed becomes a respondent for the purposes of the Act.
The Court clarified that Section 11 of the POSH Act does not mandate that the respondent must be an employee of the same workplace where the ICC is constituted. The phrase “where the respondent is an employee” as used in Section 11 governs the manner in which inquiry and subsequent disciplinary action are to be conducted, and does not restrict ICC jurisdiction to cases where both parties belong to the same workplace.
The bench held that if the respondent is an employee, applicable service rules will govern disciplinary proceedings. In the absence of service rules, the inquiry is to be conducted in the manner prescribed under the Act. However, the existence of service rules or the place of employment of the respondent does not determine which ICC has jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint.
The Court referred to Section 13 of the POSH Act, which requires the ICC to forward its inquiry report and recommendations to the employer, and the employer is then required to act upon those recommendations in accordance with law. The Supreme Court noted that this statutory mechanism contemplates cooperation between different departments or employers where required.
Placing reliance on an Office Memorandum dated July 16, 2025, the Court observed that in government service, the ICC performs a dual role. It conducts preliminary or fact-finding inquiry under the POSH Act and may also act as the inquiry authority in formal disciplinary proceedings under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
The Supreme Court directed that the report of the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman be transmitted forthwith to the department of the appellant. The appellant’s department was directed to take further action in accordance with the POSH Act and the applicable service rules.
ICCs should not reject or postpone complaints on the ground that the respondent is employed elsewhere. The jurisdiction is linked to the aggrieved woman’s workplace ICC, and the process should move forward with sensitivity and statutory intent.
Where the respondent belongs to another department or employer, robust coordination is required for follow-up action. Employers should be prepared for receiving inquiry outcomes and acting under applicable service rules or disciplinary frameworks.
Key reminder from the ruling’s spirit: POSH is a protective and welfare law. It must be applied with sensitivity, not reduced to technical arguments.
Share This News