Draft. Prepared from official sources for Adv. Varun Agarwal's review before publication.

Dotted terms explain themselves on hover or tap. Numbered notes sit in the margin; tap a number to open one.

The case in brief

Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India was decided on 10 December 2025 (2025 INSC 1415) by Justices J.K. Maheshwari, who wrote the judgment, and Vijay Bishnoi.

The complainant, an IAS officer serving as a Joint Secretary in the Department of Food and Public Distribution, alleged sexual harassment by an IRS officer of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in an incident at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, on 15 May 2023. The Internal CommitteeInternal CommitteeThe committee an employer with ten or more employees must set up under the POSH Act to receive and inquire into complaints of sexual harassment. of her department issued him notice. He argued that only a committee of his own department could inquire into the complaint. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court rejected that argument, and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal.

The question

Section 11 of the POSH Act tells the committee how to inquire “where the respondentRespondentThe person against whom a complaint is made. is an employee”. Does that phrase mean that only the committee at the respondent’s workplace can hear the complaint?

What the Court held

  • “Where” describes a situation, not a place. The phrase tells the committee which procedure to follow (the respondent’s service rules), not which committee has jurisdiction.
  • The Act does not require both people to work at the same workplace. Its definitions of respondent, employee and workplace are wide enough to cover a complaint against someone employed elsewhere.
  • A narrow reading would defeat the Act’s purpose. The POSH Act is social welfare legislation, and requiring a woman to complain to another organisation’s committee would put barriers in her way.
  • Fact-finding and discipline are separate. The complainant’s committee finds the facts. The respondent’s own employer then decides on disciplinary action under the service rules that apply to him. For central government employees, the Court described this as a two-stage process under the government’s own rules.
  • The respondent’s employer must cooperate. Under Section 19 of the Act, it must promptly provide information the inquiring committee asks for.

The Court found no prejudice to the appellant, who remains free to raise every defence other than jurisdiction in the disciplinary proceedings. The committee’s report, kept in a sealed cover, was directed to be sent to his department to act on.

What it means for employers

  • Your committee may receive complaints about outsiders. An employee may complain to your Internal Committee about someone employed by a client, vendor or contractor. The committee should be ready to run a fact-finding inquiry and send its findings to that person’s employer.
  • If your employee is named in someone else’s inquiry, you are expected to cooperate with that committee and to act on findings sent to you, under your own service rules.
  • A caution on reach. The case concerned two central government departments, and the two-stage process rests on government rules. The Court did not rule on private employers, so applying the judgment to them follows from its reasoning rather than from an express holding.1 Commentators have read the judgment as extending to private-sector complaints, such as those involving group companies, vendors and clients. That is an inference from the Court’s reading of the Act, not a direction in the judgment.

For what the POSH Act requires of every employer, see our guide, POSH at work.

Sources

Need help with this?

This falls under our Labour & Employment practice.

Make an enquiry →

This article is general information about the law as of the date above. It is not legal advice. Policies and schemes change; check the current position before you act.