Jun 26 2026 | theoutcastcollective
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) was enacted to provide a safe and secure working environment for women by addressing incidents of sexual harassment arising in connection with the workplace. Over the years, organisations have made significant strides in establishing Internal Committees (ICs), developing reporting mechanisms, and conducting awareness programmes. However, one area that continues to create uncertainty is determining whether a complaint actually falls within the jurisdiction of an Internal Committee.
A recent Bombay High Court judgment has brought this issue into sharp focus by highlighting an often-overlooked aspect of POSH compliance: understanding the limits of an Internal Committee’s authority. While organisations are generally prepared to conduct inquiries once a complaint is received, they are not always equally equipped to determine whether the complaint is one that the Internal Committee is legally empowered to investigate in the first place.
This distinction is not merely procedural. Jurisdiction forms the very foundation of a valid inquiry, and proceeding without it may result in unnecessary litigation, procedural irregularities, and outcomes that fail to align with the intent of the law.
The Facts That Led to the Court’s Decision
The matter before the Bombay High Court arose from a complaint involving two individuals who were employed by entirely separate organisations. They neither worked together nor shared any professional or employment relationship. Their only point of interaction was their daily commute in a shared auto-rickshaw.
During one such commute, the aggrieved woman alleged that the accused had behaved inappropriately. Believing the incident warranted action under the POSH Act, she first approached the Internal Committee of her own organisation. Rather than examining whether the matter fell within its jurisdiction, the Internal Committee forwarded the complaint to the accused’s employer. The accused organisation’s Internal Committee, in turn, also proceeded to inquire into the complaint.
According to the Bombay High Court judgment, the matter did not fall within the scope of the POSH Act because the alleged incident did not arise out of a workplace relationship as contemplated by the legislation. Since the parties belonged to different organisations and shared no employment or professional connection, the Internal Committees lacked the jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.
The judgment serves as an important reminder that the existence of an allegation alone does not automatically trigger the powers of an Internal Committee. Before initiating any inquiry, the committee must first determine whether the complaint satisfies the legal requirements prescribed under the Act.
Why Jurisdiction Is the First Question Every Internal Committee Must Answer
The role of an Internal Committee begins much earlier than conducting interviews, reviewing evidence, or recording witness statements. Its first responsibility is to determine whether it has the legal authority to examine the complaint.
Jurisdiction under the POSH Act is closely linked to the existence of a workplace relationship. The legislation was specifically designed to address incidents of sexual harassment that arise in connection with employment or within environments that qualify as a workplace under the Act. While the definition of a workplace is intentionally broad and extends beyond traditional office premises, the complaint must nevertheless retain a meaningful nexus with employment.
In the present case, no such connection existed. The parties neither worked for the same employer nor interacted in a professional capacity. Their only association was that they happened to travel in the same shared auto during their daily commute. Without an employment relationship or workplace connection, the Internal Committees had no statutory authority to conduct an inquiry.
Recognising this distinction is essential because jurisdiction cannot be assumed simply because the complaint involves employees. It must arise within the legal framework established by the POSH Act.
Where the Internal Committees Went Wrong
One of the most significant observations emerging from this case is not merely the Court’s conclusion, but the process that preceded it.
Both Internal Committees accepted the complaint and initiated proceedings without first evaluating whether they possessed the authority to do so. The complainant’s organisation forwarded the matter to the accused’s employer, and the receiving Internal Committee proceeded with the inquiry. At no stage did either committee pause to examine whether the circumstances satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of the Act.
This reflects a broader challenge that many organisations continue to face. Internal Committee members are often trained extensively on conducting investigations, maintaining confidentiality, evaluating evidence, and preparing inquiry reports. Comparatively less attention is given to determining whether a complaint falls within the scope of the legislation before the inquiry begins.
As a result, organisations sometimes undertake investigations that extend beyond the authority granted to them under the law. While these actions may be driven by good intentions, they nevertheless expose organisations to avoidable legal challenges and undermine procedural fairness. Investing in Internal Committee training can help organisations build greater confidence in making these jurisdictional decisions.
A Shared Commute Does Not Automatically Exclude the POSH Act
An equally important aspect of the judgment is understanding what it does not say.
The Court did not suggest that incidents occurring during a commute can never fall within the ambit of the POSH Act. Rather, the determining factor was the complete absence of any workplace relationship between the individuals involved.
If the same incident had occurred between colleagues employed by the same organisation, the legal analysis could have been very different. Modern workplaces frequently involve business travel, employer-arranged transportation, client meetings outside office premises, hybrid working arrangements, and interactions beyond conventional office spaces. The POSH Act recognises this reality by adopting an expansive understanding of what constitutes a workplace.
Therefore, a complaint cannot be dismissed merely because the incident occurred inside a vehicle or outside office premises. What remains critical is whether the parties share an employment relationship and whether the circumstances bear a sufficient connection to the workplace.
This distinction is particularly important for Internal Committee members, who must avoid relying solely on the physical location of an incident while determining jurisdiction.
Strengthening Internal Committee Decision-Making
As workplaces become increasingly dynamic, Internal Committees are expected to navigate situations that may not fit neatly within traditional legal categories. This requires more than procedural knowledge; it demands a sound understanding of the statutory framework governing their authority.
An effective Internal Committee should be capable of distinguishing between complaints that fall within the POSH Act and those that may require intervention under other legal mechanisms. Such clarity protects the interests of both complainants and respondents while ensuring that the organisation acts within the limits prescribed by law.
Regular training, exposure to evolving judicial interpretations, and continuous legal guidance can significantly improve the quality of decision-making within Internal Committees. Organisations seeking to strengthen their workplace culture should also invest in DEI consulting and proactive POSH compliance initiatives.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision serves as an important reminder that the effectiveness of the POSH Act depends not only on conducting fair investigations but also on recognising when an Internal Committee is legally authorised to investigate in the first place.
Jurisdiction is not a procedural technicality; it is the legal foundation upon which every POSH inquiry is built. Before an Internal Committee begins examining evidence or hearing witnesses, it must first determine whether the complaint falls within the scope of the Act.
As workplace relationships continue to evolve beyond traditional office settings, organisations must ensure that Internal Committee members possess not only investigative skills but also a thorough understanding of the legal boundaries of their mandate. Strengthening this aspect of POSH compliance will enable organisations to conduct legally sound inquiries while preserving the rights, dignity, and confidence of everyone involved.
Take the first step today. Schedule an exploratory consultation via WhatsApp at +91 8928021419 or email rutuja@theoutcastcollective.com with our POSH experts and start building a workplace where everyone belongs.