Sexual harassment at the workplace includes any unwelcome act or conduct of a sexual nature that creates a hostile working environment. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act, 2013), provides a structured remedial framework through Internal Committee(s) (IC) of organisations to address such issues.
One important category within this framework is third-party sexual harassment, where the perpetrator is not a direct employee of the aggrieved woman’s organisation. Inter organisational sexual harassment is a common example of this. It occurs when the Complainant and Respondent belong to different organisations, but the incident arises in the course of work. For instance, if a woman employee faces harassment from an official of another organisation during a joint meeting, training programme, or field visit, it would constitute inter-organisational harassment and fall within the broader ambit of third-party sexual harassment
Traditionally, such complaints were treated as jurisdictional grey areas. Many employers declined to proceed, citing the absence of a direct employer-employee relationship with the Respondent. It was believed that only Respondents’ organisations can take up such matters. This uncertainty created access barriers for Complainants and weakened institutional accountability. The Supreme Court has now decisively clarified this ambiguity in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India2, reaffirming that the PoSH framework already contains the tools needed to address inter-organisational harassment effectively.
WHAT CHANGED WITH THE JUDGEMENT
In Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India, the Supreme Court clarified that when a woman faces sexual harassment at work, she can complain to the Internal Committee of her own workplace, even if the accused works in a different department or organisation. In this case, the Complainant and Respondent were officers belonging to different Central Government departments. The harassment allegedly occurred at the Complainant’s workplace. While the Complainant approached her own IC, the Respondent challenged its jurisdiction, arguing that only the IC of his department could inquire into the matter.
The Court said it would be unfair and impractical to force the victim to approach the harasser’s office to seek justice. This judgment strengthens the POSH law by making sure women don’t face extra hurdles just because the harasser belongs to another organisation.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
This judgment makes it clear that a woman can file a PoSH complaint at her own workplace even if the person she is complaining about works in a different organisation or department. She does not need to approach the accused person’s office to seek help. The Supreme Court explained that forcing a woman to go to another workplace would create fear, discomfort, and unnecessary difficulty, and would defeat the purpose of the PoSH law, which is meant to provide safe and accessible remedies for women.
The Court also clarified how such cases should be handled. First, the Internal Committee (IC) at the Complainant’s workplace will conduct a fact-finding inquiry to understand what happened. If the complaint appears valid, the IC sends its report to the Respondent’s employer for disciplinary actions. In this way, the process happens in two stages: fact-finding by the Complainant’s IC, followed by disciplinary action by the Respondent’s employer.
Notably, the Respondent’s organisation is legally required to cooperate with the Complainant’s IC. This includes sharing documents, providing service details, and helping with witnesses. The Court made it clear that this cooperation is not optional. At the same time, the Respondent still has the right to be heard during disciplinary proceedings, so the process remains fair. The Court also addressed concerns about bias. It said that simply because the inquiry is conducted by the Complainant’s IC does not make the process unfair. Unless there is clear proof of prejudice or procedural wrongdoing, the inquiry cannot be challenged on this ground alone. This strengthens trust in the PoSH system while still protecting the rights of both parties.
IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
The judgment makes the PoSH process more accessible for women by allowing complaints to be handled at their own workplace. It places responsibility on organisations to cooperate and maintain fairness in processes. However, there are a few practical challenges in its implementation.
For instance, coordination between two different organisations can be slow, especially when sharing information or arranging cooperation. There may also be perceptions of bias, even when the IC acts neutrally. Because of this, ICs must be careful to follow proper procedure, and employers must actively cooperate to ensure that cases move forward smoothly. While the judgment offers important guidance on how IC recommendations are to be implemented within the PoSH framework, its real impact will depend on how organisations respond in practice.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s clarification does not rewrite the PoSH Act; it reinforces its original spirit. By affirming that women may approach their own Internal Committees even in inter organisational contexts, the Court has closed a long-standing loophole that allowed employers to evade responsibility. Inter-organisational harassment requires flexible institutional responses grounded in cooperation, accountability, and IC autonomy. When employers work together respecting the IC’s findings and fulfilling their statutory duties the system moves closer to its constitutional promise: safe, dignified workplaces for all women. The message is clear. Jurisdictional technicalities cannot override access to justice. The PoSH framework provides the pathway. What remains is for institutions to walk it.
For organisations seeking guidance on strengthening their Internal Committee processes and ensuring compliant implementation of the PoSH framework, Sol PoSH Consultants can provide expert support and advisory services.
Written by JASI SAPNA S.
4th Year Law Student, The National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi