Supreme Court Clarifies ICC Jurisdiction Under the POSH Act

Judgement passed on December 10,2025 in Sohail Malik v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2751

This judgment settles long-standing ambiguities surrounding who can invoke POSH proceedings, when ICC jurisdiction arises, and how far its powers extend, making it a must-read for employers, HR professionals, and compliance officers.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a complaint alleging sexual harassment at the workplace, where the maintainability of ICC proceedings itself was questioned.

The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the ICC could exercise jurisdiction when:

• The complainant’s employment status was disputed
• The alleged conduct was argued to be outside the traditional employer–employee framework
• The workplace nexus was questioned

This case tested the boundaries of ICC authority under the POSH Act.

Core Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court examined the following critical questions:

1. What is the scope of ICC jurisdiction under the POSH Act?
2. Does ICC jurisdiction depend strictly on a formal employer–employee relationship?
3. Can technical objections defeat the object of the POSH legislation?
4. How should employers interpret “workplace” and “aggrieved woman”?

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

1. POSH Act Is a Beneficial and Protective Legislation

The Court reaffirmed that the POSH Act is a social welfare legislation, enacted to give effect to constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, and 21.

Accordingly, the Act must be interpreted liberally, not narrowly or technically.

2. ICC Jurisdiction Is Not Defeated by Hyper-Technical Objections

The Supreme Court categorically held that:

• ICC jurisdiction cannot be frustrated by raising technical disputes about designation, contractual status, or nature of engagement
• What matters is the existence of a workplace nexus, not rigid employment labels

This ruling prevents misuse of procedural loopholes to avoid POSH accountability.

3. Broad Interpretation of “Workplace”

The Court reiterated that “workplace” under the POSH Act includes:

• Any place visited by the woman arising out of or during the course of employment
• Virtual, remote, off-site, and work-related environments

Employers cannot escape liability by arguing that the incident occurred outside physical office premises.

4. ICC’s Authority to Examine Maintainability

The Court clarified that the ICC itself has the jurisdiction to examine:

• Whether a complaint is maintainable
• Whether the facts attract the POSH Act

However, this determination must be made during inquiry, not by summary rejection.

5. Judicial Interference at ICC Stage Discouraged

The Supreme Court strongly cautioned against:

• Premature writ petitions challenging ICC proceedings
• Interference before completion of inquiry

Courts should intervene only after ICC proceedings conclude, except in cases of patent illegality.

Why This Judgment Is a Turning Point

This ruling significantly strengthens the POSH framework by:

• Closing jurisdictional escape routes
• Empowering ICCs to function independently
• Reinforcing employer accountability
• Protecting complainants from procedural harassment

It sends a clear message: POSH compliance is substantive, not symbolic.

Practical Takeaways for Employers and HR Teams

1. Do Not Dismiss Complaints at Threshold
2. Strengthen ICC Training
3. Review POSH Policies
4. Avoid Knee-Jerk Legal Challenges

Compliance Lessons from the Judgment

• POSH compliance is not limited to documentation
• ICC independence must be respected
• Procedural fairness is as important as substantive justice
• Employer intent and conduct matter

Failure to internalize these principles may expose organizations to legal, reputational, and regulatory risks.

How The Compliers Helps

At The Compliers, we provide end-to-end POSH compliance solutions, including:

• Legally sound POSH Policy drafting
• Internal Committee constitution and external member support
• Employee and IC training modules
• Our approach focuses on practical compliance, not just documentation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sohail Malik v. Union of India (2025) decisively strengthens the POSH regime in India. By affirming broad ICC jurisdiction and discouraging technical evasion, the Court has reinforced the protective intent of the law.

For employers, this judgment is a reminder that POSH compliance must be proactive, fair, and legally robust—anything less invites serious consequences.

Sohail Malik v Union of India, POSH Act Supreme Court judgment, ICC jurisdiction POSH, Internal Complaints Committee powers, POSH Act case law, workplace sexual harassment India