Who Handles Cross Company Sexual Harassment Complaints? Supreme Court Clarifies

Mansi Singh and Riya Jain

The safety and dignity of women is not negotiable. Institutions that fail to protect women fail the Constitution itself! While every person in an ideal world should agree with the above quote, the unfortunate reality is that many women continue to face sexual harassment at workplace. What is even more alarming is that most of the victims do not file formal complaints from the fear of procedures, retaliation, reputational damage and systematic barriers.

Compliance in spirt, not mere formality

By a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India (“SC”) has made it clear that the purpose of the anti-sexual harassment law in India, i.e., Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”), is to bring safety and accountability in the workplace and to enable women to pursue their career without the fear of a hostile environment. The SC has conveyed that procedural hindrances or narrow interpretation of the law are not acceptable. The POSH Act does not merely punish acts of sexual harassment but actively imposes a legal duty on employers to prohibit and prevent harassment, it ensures that the women in each workplace have open access to a mechanism for redressal of complaints of sexual harassment in the form of Internal Committees (“IC”).

Where to file a complaint when parties work in different organizations?

In Dr Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Another, the SC on December 10, 2025, held that the IC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman is competent to inquire into a sexual harassment complaint, even if the accused belongs to a different department/workplace.

The issue before the SC arose from a challenge to the authority of IC at the workplace of the aggrieved woman. The officer accused of sexual harassment argued that, since he was employed in a different department which has its own IC, the complaint could only be examined by the IC constituted at his own workplace. This argument rested on a narrow and literal reading of the POSH Act.

Intent over Technicality

The SC declined to accept this approach. It observed that legislation intended to address workplace sexual harassment must be interpreted in a manner that furthers its protective purpose. The SC made it clear that while the wording of a statute is important, interpretation cannot stop at isolated phrases and undermine the broader objective of the law. Where different interpretations of any provision of law are possible, the one that promotes access to justice and fairness must prevail.

Understanding the Workplace in a Modern Employment Context

The SC recognised that professional interactions today are not confined to a single office or organisation. Employees routinely engage across departments and organisations in the course of their work. Against this backdrop, it is crucial to adopt a practical and contemporary understanding of what constitutes a workplace.

The judgment noted that harassment can arise during any work-related interaction, regardless of whether the individuals involved are formally employed by the same organisation or department. Requiring an aggrieved woman to pursue her complaint before the IC of the accused would amount to putting her before an unfamiliar group that could place her at a disadvantage by exposing her to unnecessary discomfort or bias. Such an outcome, the SC observed, would run counter to the very purpose of the POSH Act, which is to provide a safe, accessible, and effective mechanism for redressal.

Balancing Fair Process With Effective Redressal

While the SC affirmed the authority of the IC at the aggrieved woman’s workplace to examine the complaint and issue the report containing its findings, it clarified that, once the IC’s report is submitted, any further action must be taken by the employer of the accused in accordance with the POSH Act. This approach ensures that the process remains fair, structured, and consistent with the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion

For employers, compliance teams, and ICs, the ruling provides valuable clarity, it confirms that the POSH Act must be interpreted in a way that preserves the object of the legislation. Technical objections that have no bearing on the substance of the complaint should not be used to delay or derail inquiries into workplace sexual harassment, particularly where such objections would place an undue burden on the complainant.