The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated 28 November 2025, held that an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) has the jurisdiction to conduct preliminary inquiries even where the respondent is employed in a different government department from the complainant. A Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi ruled that the protective ambit of the POSH Act cannot be truncated by departmental boundaries within the government.
Background
The case of Sohail Malik v. Union of India raised a jurisdictional question that has practical significance across government workplaces where employees from multiple departments interact within shared physical spaces or collaborative administrative structures. The respondent contended that the ICC of the complainant's department lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint because the respondent was employed under a different department with its own ICC.
The POSH Act, 2013 mandates the constitution of an ICC in every workplace employing ten or more workers. The Act defines "workplace" broadly to include government organisations, but the question of which ICC has jurisdiction when the complainant and respondent belong to different departments within the same or overlapping government structures had not been authoritatively addressed. This jurisdictional gap risked creating a procedural lacuna where complaints could be deflected between departments without substantive inquiry.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
ICC jurisdiction not limited by departmental lines: The Bench held that the ICC of the department to which the complainant belongs has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary inquiries under the POSH Act, irrespective of whether the respondent is employed in a different government department. The focus of the Act is on protecting the complainant, and jurisdiction follows the complainant's workplace.
Purposive interpretation of "workplace": The Court adopted a purposive reading of the definition of "workplace" under the POSH Act, observing that the statutory purpose of preventing and addressing sexual harassment would be defeated if departmental silos were permitted to function as jurisdictional barriers.
Preliminary inquiry scope: The ICC's jurisdiction extends to conducting the preliminary inquiry and making recommendations. Where disciplinary action against the respondent is warranted, the ICC's findings and recommendations must be transmitted to the respondent's department for implementation through appropriate disciplinary proceedings.
Inter-departmental coordination required: The Bench directed that government departments must cooperate in the implementation of POSH Act proceedings, including facilitating access to respondents for inquiry proceedings and implementing recommendations received from the ICC of the complainant's department.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment closes a jurisdictional gap that had allowed some respondents to evade POSH Act inquiry proceedings by invoking departmental boundaries. Practitioners advising complainants in government workplaces should note that the ICC of the complainant's department is now the clearly established forum for initiating proceedings, regardless of the respondent's departmental affiliation.
For government departments and their legal advisors, the immediate compliance obligation is to establish protocols for inter-departmental cooperation in POSH proceedings. This includes mechanisms for transmitting inquiry findings, facilitating respondent participation, and implementing disciplinary recommendations received from external ICCs.
Human resources and compliance practitioners should update their POSH training programmes to reflect this expanded jurisdictional understanding. The judgment underscores that the protective framework of the Act prioritises the complainant's access to the grievance mechanism over administrative convenience.