Bombay High Court Clarifies ICC Jurisdiction Under the POSH Act

Introduction

A recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors.[1] provides important guidance on the jurisdiction of Internal Committees (“ICCs”) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”).

The decision reiterates that an ICC can investigate a complaint only where the alleged incident falls within the statutory definition of a “workplace” under the POSH Act. It also highlights the importance of examining jurisdiction at the outset of the inquiry process.

Background

The complaint arose from an alleged incident of sexual harassment that occurred while the complainant and the respondent were travelling to work in a shared public autorickshaw.

The relevant facts before the Court included the following:

• The autorickshaw was not arranged or provided by the employer;
• The employer exercised no control over the mode of transport; and
• The commute formed part of the employees’ routine public travel to the workplace.

Despite these circumstances, the employer’s ICC proceeded with an inquiry and ultimately returned findings against the respondent.

Findings of the Bombay High Court

The High Court set aside the ICC’s findings on the ground that the Committee lacked jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry.

While interpreting Sections 2(a), 2(o), 9 and 11 of the POSH Act, the Court reiterated that an ICC can investigate a complaint only when the alleged incident occurs at a “workplace” as defined under the Act.

The Court observed that although Section 2(o)(v) includes transportation provided by the employer within the ambit of a workplace, a shared public autorickshaw used by employees for their personal commute cannot be treated as a workplace merely because both individuals happen to be employees of the same organisation.

The Significance of Jurisdiction

One of the most significant observations made by the Court is that jurisdiction is a threshold issue.

Before embarking upon a detailed inquiry, an ICC must first determine whether the complaint falls within the statutory framework of the POSH Act. Jurisdiction cannot be assumed and examined only after a full-fledged inquiry has been conducted.

The Court further clarified that it did not examine the truthfulness of the allegations or the merits of the complaint. Its decision was confined solely to the issue of jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways

1. ICC Jurisdiction Is Not Unlimited: The existence of an employer-employee relationship alone does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the ICC.
2. Workplace Determination Is Essential: The ICC must first assess whether the alleged incident occurred at a location that falls within the statutory definition of a workplace.
3. Employer-Provided Transportation May Qualify as a Workplace: The POSH Act expressly includes employer-provided transportation within the scope of a workplace. However, ordinary public transportation used independently by employees generally would not fall within this definition.
4. Jurisdictional Assessment Should Be Undertaken at the Outset: A preliminary assessment of jurisdiction can help ensure procedural fairness and strengthen the legal sustainability of the inquiry process.
5. Due Process Protects All Stakeholders: Proper adherence to jurisdictional requirements safeguards both complainants and respondents and reinforces the integrity of the POSH framework.

Conclusion

This judgment serves as a timely reminder that while the objectives of the POSH Act must be interpreted broadly to ensure protection against workplace sexual harassment, the statutory limits of the Act cannot be overlooked.

A legally sustainable POSH process requires not only sensitivity and empathy but also strict adherence to jurisdictional requirements and procedural fairness. The decision reinforces an important principle: before examining the merits of a complaint, an ICC must first satisfy itself that it has the jurisdiction to do so.

[1] (W.P. No. 1213 of 2024, decided on 16 June 2026)

Last Updated on 24 June, 2026