Quick answer: Yes. The Internal Committee where the woman works can inquire into her complaint even when the person she names works for another organisation. In Dr Sohail Malik v. Union of India, decided on 10 December 2025, the Supreme Court held that this committee does the fact-finding and sends its findings to the respondent’s employer, which then decides on disciplinary action.
Harassment at work can come from a client’s manager, a vendor’s staff or an officer from another department, not only from colleagues. The Supreme Court has now settled which committee may inquire in such cases, and that changes how your Internal Committee and POSH Policy should work.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Dr Sohail Malik v. Union of India?
The complaint came from a senior IAS officer working as Joint Secretary in the Department of Food and Public Distribution. She alleged that an Indian Revenue Service officer posted at the Central Board of Direct Taxes harassed her on 15 May 2023 at her workplace, Krishi Bhawan in New Delhi. She complained to the Internal Committee of her own department on 24 May 2023.
The officer argued that only the committee of his own department could inquire into a complaint against him. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected that argument, and the Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal on 30 June 2023. On 10 December 2025 a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed his appeal (2025 INSC 1415).
Why can the woman’s committee inquire when the respondent works elsewhere?
The answer lies in how the POSH Act defines its key words. Three provisions mattered:
- Respondent (Section 2(m)) means the person against whom the aggrieved woman has complained under Section 9. Nothing in it says he must work at the same place.
- Workplace (Section 2(o)) includes any place an employee visits arising out of or during the course of employment. A client’s office, a vendor’s site or an event venue can therefore be a workplace.
- Section 11(1) says that where the respondent is an employee, the inquiry follows the service rules that apply to him, and where no such rules exist, the manner set out in the Rules. The Court read these words as a procedural trigger that tells the committee which rules to follow, not as a limit on which committee may inquire.
The Court also separated the power to find facts, which sits with the committee where the woman works, from the power to act on them, which stays with the respondent’s own employer.
What can the Internal Committee do, and what can it not do?
| Stage | Who acts | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint | The aggrieved woman | Files with the Internal Committee of her own workplace |
| Fact-finding inquiry | Her Internal Committee | Gathers facts from both sides and can ask the respondent’s employer for information |
| Findings | Her Internal Committee | Sends its findings and recommendations to the respondent’s employer |
| Disciplinary action | The respondent’s employer | Must act on the report within 60 days (Section 13(4)) and decides whether disciplinary proceedings are warranted |
| Penalty | The respondent’s employer only | Neither the woman’s committee nor her employer can penalise the respondent |
During any inquiry, the Act gives an Internal Committee the powers of a civil court for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person, examining people on oath and requiring documents to be produced (Section 11(3)). An Internal Committee never imposes a penalty itself; it recommends (Section 13(3)). In the government case before the Court, if the respondent’s disciplinary authority decides to start proceedings, the Internal Committee of his own department acts as the inquiring authority and must refer to the first committee’s report.
Does the ruling apply to private companies?
The case involved two central government departments, and the Court decided no private-sector case. Its first finding, on which committee may inquire, rests on the Act’s definitions of respondent and workplace. Those apply to every workplace the Act covers: Section 2(o) expressly includes private sector organisations, hospitals and nursing homes, sports venues and any place an employee visits for work. The second part, where the respondent’s department holds the formal disciplinary inquiry, was framed for central government employees and their service rules, so how that stage works for a private employer is still an open question.
Private employers should still expect their committees to receive complaints involving:
- a client’s employee during a meeting or site visit;
- a vendor’s or contractor’s staff at your premises;
- people from another company at a conference, training or offsite;
- staff of another tenant in a shared office or co-working space.
Other questions remain open too, such as which committee leads when two organisations receive complaints about the same incident. Until courts settle them, a clear written process protects everyone.
What should employers do now?
- Update your POSH Policy. State plainly that your Internal Committee will inquire into complaints involving people from outside the organisation, and explain how findings will be shared.
- Add a POSH clause to vendor, client and partner contracts. Both sides agree to share information with each other’s committees and to act on findings.
- Brief your Internal Committee. Members should know the difference between fact-finding and disciplinary action, and that their report goes to the respondent’s employer when he works elsewhere.
- Keep a written record. Note every request for information sent to the other organisation and every reply, with dates.
- Protect the complainant at your workplace. Your duty to provide a safe working environment, including safety from people who come into contact with your staff at work, does not wait for the other employer (Section 19(a)). If she wishes, you must also start action under the law against a perpetrator who is not your employee (Section 19(h)).
Which POSH time limits still apply?
The Act’s own time limits still frame each step:
| Step | Time limit | Section |
|---|---|---|
| File a complaint | 3 months from the incident, or from the last incident in a series; the committee can extend this by up to 3 months for recorded reasons | 9(1) |
| Complete the inquiry | 90 days | 11(4) |
| Send the inquiry report | 10 days from completing the inquiry | 13(1) |
| Employer acts on the recommendations | 60 days from receiving them | 13(4) |
| Appeal against the recommendations | 90 days | 18(2) |
An employer who fails to constitute an Internal Committee, or breaks other provisions of the Act, can be fined up to ₹50,000 (Section 26(1)). A repeat conviction can bring twice the punishment and the cancellation or non-renewal of a licence or registration (Section 26(2)).
Frequently asked questions
Yes. For an inquiry, the Act gives the committee the powers of a civil court to summon and enforce the attendance of any person, examine people on oath and require documents (Section 11(3)). It can also ask the respondent’s employer for information.
No. Your committee finds facts and makes recommendations. Disciplinary action, such as a warning or dismissal, is for the respondent’s own employer under its service or conduct rules. Your part is to share the findings and keep the complainant safe at your workplace.
Keep a dated record of what you sent and any reply. Section 18 allows an appeal against non-implementation of recommendations, and failing to act under Section 13 is punishable under Section 26. You can still protect the complainant at your workplace and, if she chooses, help her file a police complaint (Section 19(g)).
Yes. The complaint must be made within three months of the incident, or of the last incident in a series. The committee can extend this by up to three more months if it records why the woman could not complain earlier (Section 9(1)).
Yes, if your policy only covers respondents who are your own employees. Add how the committee handles outside respondents, how findings are shared with other organisations, and who the contact person is for partner companies.
No. Both officers worked for central government departments, and the Court decided no private-sector case. Its reading of respondent and workplace applies to every workplace the Act covers, but how the disciplinary stage works for private employers is still open, so set out your own process in your POSH Policy.
Get your committee ready for outside complaints
Manas Center for Mental Wellness and Counselling sets up and runs POSH compliance for companies across India, with Dr. Priya Dubey Sharma, Founder & Consulting Psychologist, as External Member and an online portal that keeps tamper-proof records of every complaint and every step. See how Manas POSH compliance works, take the free 2-minute committee check, or read the POSH FAQ for employers.
Sources
- Supreme Court of India: judgment in Dr Sohail Malik v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 404 of 2024, 10 December 2025
- Supreme Court Observer: Dr Sohail Malik v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1415
- SCC Online: Supreme Court on Internal Committee jurisdiction under the POSH Act
- India Code: The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
Plain-language guides to POSH compliance for Indian employers, based on the Act, the Rules and court rulings. POSH compliance at Manas Center is led by Dr. Priya Dubey Sharma, Founder & Consulting Psychologist, as External Member.
