On 10 December 2025, the Supreme Court quietly resolved a jurisdiction puzzle that had been frustrating many survivors and HR teams under the PoSH Act. The case involved an IAS officer in the Department of Food and Public Distribution in New Delhi who alleged sexual harassment by an IRS officer posted in a different department. When she filed her complaint before the Internal Committee of her own workplace, the accused officer challenged the committees jurisdiction, arguing that only the committee in his department could legally inquire into the case. After winding its way through the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which examined the structure of Sections 2 and 11 of the PoSH Act and firmly held that the Internal Committee at the aggrieved womans workplace has the jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry, even if the respondent is employed in another organisation or department.
For many women who had previously been bounced between committees with a cold line like not our jurisdiction, the ruling feels like a long overdue correction. Legal commentators and POSH trainers report HR heads calling to ask how this will affect complaints involving vendors, consultants, visiting leaders and cross functional project teams. Survivors describe the psychological relief of knowing they do not have to approach an alien or hostile workplace to be heard, especially if the perpetrator is more senior or well connected in that other entity. At the same time, compliance officers who manage committees in banks, IT companies and multinationals are nervous about the workload and complexity of fact finding when witnesses and documents sit in multiple organisations, and about how to coordinate communication so that neither side feels ambushed or denied a fair hearing.
From a governance standpoint, this judgment forces every employer to rethink how its PoSH policy handles third party and inter organisational cases. The Supreme Court has effectively confirmed that the Internal Committee at the survivors workplace leads the fact finding, while the respondents employer is expected to cooperate fully and then decide on disciplinary action under its own service rules, guided by that report. That means policies must clearly spell out duties under Section 19, data sharing protocols, confidentiality expectations, and how to handle situations where the other organisation is unresponsive or defensive. CHROs should audit their current PoSH documents, vendor codes of conduct and training decks to ensure they acknowledge this two stage mechanism, and they should run scenario drills where complainant and respondent sit in different companies or group entities so that ICC members and leadership know exactly what to do when the next cross workplace complaint lands.
How would your organisation practically handle a PoSH complaint tomorrow if the accused worked for a client, vendor or group company rather than on your own payroll?
Do your current policies and contracts with third parties clearly explain who investigates, who decides punishment, and how information will be shared in such cases?
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
7For many women who had previously been bounced between committees with a cold line like not our jurisdiction, the ruling feels like a long overdue correction. Legal commentators and POSH trainers report HR heads calling to ask how this will affect complaints involving vendors, consultants, visiting leaders and cross functional project teams. Survivors describe the psychological relief of knowing they do not have to approach an alien or hostile workplace to be heard, especially if the perpetrator is more senior or well connected in that other entity. At the same time, compliance officers who manage committees in banks, IT companies and multinationals are nervous about the workload and complexity of fact finding when witnesses and documents sit in multiple organisations, and about how to coordinate communication so that neither side feels ambushed or denied a fair hearing.
From a governance standpoint, this judgment forces every employer to rethink how its PoSH policy handles third party and inter organisational cases. The Supreme Court has effectively confirmed that the Internal Committee at the survivors workplace leads the fact finding, while the respondents employer is expected to cooperate fully and then decide on disciplinary action under its own service rules, guided by that report. That means policies must clearly spell out duties under Section 19, data sharing protocols, confidentiality expectations, and how to handle situations where the other organisation is unresponsive or defensive. CHROs should audit their current PoSH documents, vendor codes of conduct and training decks to ensure they acknowledge this two stage mechanism, and they should run scenario drills where complainant and respondent sit in different companies or group entities so that ICC members and leadership know exactly what to do when the next cross workplace complaint lands.
How would your organisation practically handle a PoSH complaint tomorrow if the accused worked for a client, vendor or group company rather than on your own payroll?
Do your current policies and contracts with third parties clearly explain who investigates, who decides punishment, and how information will be shared in such cases?
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The recent Supreme Court ruling has indeed brought clarity to the jurisdictional issue under the PoSH Act. Here's a step-by-step action plan on how your organization can handle PoSH complaints involving accused from different organizations:
1. Review your PoSH Policy: First, review your existing PoSH policy. Ensure that it clearly outlines the process for handling complaints involving third parties. It should clearly specify who investigates, who decides the punishment, and how information will be shared in such cases.
2. Update Contracts with Third Parties: Update your contracts with third parties like vendors, clients, or group companies. Include clauses that mandate cooperation in investigations and disciplinary proceedings related to PoSH complaints.
3. Establish Clear Communication Channels: Establish clear communication channels with other organizations. This is crucial to ensure that neither side feels ambushed or denied a fair hearing.
4. Training: Train your HR team and Internal Committee on the new jurisdiction rules. Run scenario drills where the complainant and respondent are in different companies or group entities. This will help them understand what to do when a cross-workplace complaint lands.
5. Maintain Confidentiality: Lastly, ensure that confidentiality is maintained throughout the process. This is crucial to protect the rights of both the complainant and the respondent.
Remember, the key is to ensure a fair and unbiased investigation, irrespective of where the accused is employed. This ruling is a significant step towards ensuring justice for survivors of sexual harassment at the workplace.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1. Review your PoSH Policy: First, review your existing PoSH policy. Ensure that it clearly outlines the process for handling complaints involving third parties. It should clearly specify who investigates, who decides the punishment, and how information will be shared in such cases.
2. Update Contracts with Third Parties: Update your contracts with third parties like vendors, clients, or group companies. Include clauses that mandate cooperation in investigations and disciplinary proceedings related to PoSH complaints.
3. Establish Clear Communication Channels: Establish clear communication channels with other organizations. This is crucial to ensure that neither side feels ambushed or denied a fair hearing.
4. Training: Train your HR team and Internal Committee on the new jurisdiction rules. Run scenario drills where the complainant and respondent are in different companies or group entities. This will help them understand what to do when a cross-workplace complaint lands.
5. Maintain Confidentiality: Lastly, ensure that confidentiality is maintained throughout the process. This is crucial to protect the rights of both the complainant and the respondent.
Remember, the key is to ensure a fair and unbiased investigation, irrespective of where the accused is employed. This ruling is a significant step towards ensuring justice for survivors of sexual harassment at the workplace.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Handling complaints.ppt
11 Years of Supreme Court.doc