Supreme Court Widens POSH Net: What Dr Sohail Malik vs Union of India Means For Private Companies

In a significant ruling with implications extending well beyond government offices, the Supreme Court has fundamentally reoriented how workplace sexual harassment jurisdiction operates under Indian law. The Court held that an Internal Complaints Committee constituted at one workplace can inquire into allegations of sexual harassment against a respondent who belongs to a different workplace or organization, provided the incident has a clear workplace nexus for the aggrieved woman.

The judgment, delivered on December 10, 2025 in Dr Sohail Malik vs Union of India, arose from a dispute between two senior civil servants posted in different Central government departments. The core legal question before the Court was whether the ICC of the complainant's department had jurisdiction to proceed against an officer belonging to another department. While the facts concerned government service, the Court's interpretation of the POSH Act carries binding force across all workplaces, including private enterprises.

Redefining "Workplace" Through the Complainant's Lens

At the centre of the ruling lies the Court's purposive interpretation of "workplace" under Section 2(o) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The Court emphasized that the statutory definition is deliberately expansive, encompassing not merely a fixed office but any place visited by an employee arising out of or during the course of employment, including transport provided by the employer.

The Court rejected the argument that ICC jurisdiction is tethered to where the respondent is employed. Instead, it held that the POSH Act is structured around protection of the aggrieved woman and her access to a safe, familiar redressal forum. The phrase "where the respondent is an employee" in Section 11, the Court clarified, is procedural in nature, guiding how an inquiry is conducted rather than imposing a jurisdictional bar.

This interpretation marks a deliberate shift from organisational convenience toward victim-centric access to justice. For private employers, this means an ICC cannot decline jurisdiction merely because the alleged harasser is a client, consultant, vendor employee, or staff member of another company. The test is whether the complainant encountered the alleged conduct in a space that constitutes her workplace under the Act.

Implications for Private Sector Compliance

The ruling carries immediate operational consequences for how private organizations structure and execute POSH compliance:

First, jurisdictional scope expands beyond payroll boundaries. Companies must be prepared to receive and adjudicate complaints involving third-party respondents. If harassment is alleged by a woman employee against someone present at her workplace or encountered during work-related activity, the company's ICC is obligated to take cognizance. POSH jurisdiction follows the aggrieved woman's workplace experience, not corporate or contractual boundaries.

This creates exposure in scenarios previously considered peripheral: shared project sites, co-working spaces, client locations, industry conferences, off-sites, and hybrid or rotating workplaces. When two companies share operational space, both entities face potential ICC jurisdiction even if the alleged harasser is not on their payroll.

Second, inter-company contracts require POSH-specific architecture. Every commercial agreement involving shared workplaces or cross-organisational interaction should now address POSH obligations explicitly. Such contracts must recognize ICC jurisdiction across entities, mandate cooperation with ICC inquiries, create consequences for non-cooperation, and allocate legal and reputational risk appropriately. Failure to do so leaves both parties exposed to procedural paralysis and potential statutory violations.

Third, the fiction of limited responsibility collapses. Employers can no longer deflect ICC complaints on grounds that disciplinary control lies elsewhere. The Court clarified that the ICC's role is fact-finding and recommendatory. Once an inquiry concludes, findings can be forwarded to the respondent's employer for action under applicable service rules or contractual frameworks. This bifurcation, between inquiry jurisdiction and disciplinary authority, is critical: it preserves ICC independence while respecting employment relationships.

Fourth, Section 19 obligations acquire enforcement significance. Section 19 of the POSH Act imposes a statutory duty on employers to cooperate with ICC inquiries, share information, assist in securing attendance of respondents and witnesses, and facilitate criminal proceedings if the aggrieved woman chooses to pursue them. Previously treated as procedural boilerplate, these obligations now carry real compliance risk. Non-cooperation could expose an organisation to statutory penalties and undermine the efficacy of the ICC process.

The Broader Compliance Reset

While the case involved inter-departmental government officers, the judgment sends an unambiguous signal to the private sector: POSH is a workplace safety statute, not a narrow employment dispute mechanism. Jurisdictional objections that force women to pursue redress across unfamiliar organisations defeat the statute's protective purpose.

However, the ruling also raises practical questions that will require careful navigation. Where multiple ICCs have potential jurisdiction, which forum should prevail? How should organizations coordinate when both the complainant's and respondent's employers seek to conduct parallel inquiries? What procedural safeguards ensure fairness to respondents who may face ICC proceedings outside their own organization? The judgment provides directional clarity but does not resolve these implementation challenges.

For private companies, the path forward requires recalibration on multiple fronts. ICCs must be empowered to handle jurisdictionally complex complaints. Third-party policies need tightening to reflect cross-organizational exposure. Vendor, client, and partnership contracts must align with POSH obligations and create enforceable cooperation mechanisms. Training programs should prepare ICC members and HR teams for inquiries involving external respondents.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has effectively redrawn the POSH compliance map, placing the woman's workplace experience, rather than corporate boundaries, at its center. This is doctrinally sound but operationally demanding. Organisations that treat this as mere legal clarification rather than a compliance reset risk finding themselves unprepared when faced with a complaint involving external parties.

The ruling reflects the Court's recognition that modern work environments are increasingly porous, with employees interacting across organizational lines in ways that blur traditional employer-employee boundaries. The law's response, the Court has held, must be equally adaptive. Whether private sector compliance infrastructure can keep pace remains to be seen.