A recent Supreme Court judgment has clarified an important issue under the POSH Act, which is “Can an Internal Committee (IC) investigate a complaint if the accused belongs to another department or organization?”
The Court’s answer was yes.
In Dr Sohail Malik v Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the IC at the complainant’s workplace can conduct the inquiry even if the respondent works elsewhere. The ruling is important because it reflects how workplaces actually function today. Employees regularly interact with clients, consultants, vendors, external teams, regulators, and partner organizations. Workplace misconduct does not always happen within neat organizational boundaries.
What Happened in the Case?
The case involved a woman officer who filed a sexual harassment complaint against a senior officer from another department.
The accused argued that the complainant’s IC had no authority to investigate him because he belonged to a different organization. According to him, only the IC within his own department could conduct the inquiry.
The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court said the POSH Act gives a broad interpretation to the term “workplace.” It is not restricted only to employees working under the same employer or inside the same office structure. If the interaction is connected to work, the protections under the POSH Act still apply.
That clarification matters because many workplace interactions today happen across organizations and functions. A narrow interpretation would have created unnecessary barriers for complainants.
Why This Judgment Matters for Employers
A lot of companies still approach POSH IC training as an annual checkbox exercise, which is mostly done by the external consultant once in a year in conjunction with filing of the POSH annual report. The IC has to rely on this one awareness session for the entire year and often it does not address incoming IC members, regional and branch levels teams etc.
Judgments like this show why IC members need a much deeper understanding of how the law works in practice.
Real complaints are rarely simple. IC members often face questions like:
- Does the IC have jurisdiction?
- What if the respondent is external?
- What if the incident happened during travel?
- What if communication happened online?
- What if more than one employer is involved?
These are not theoretical situations anymore. They are common workplace realities.
An IC that is poorly trained can mishandle procedures, delay inquiries, compromise confidentiality, or expose the organization to legal and reputational risk.
The Bigger Shift Companies Need to Understand
The ruling also sends a broader message. Workplace safety responsibilities do not end just because the accused sits outside the organization chart.
Companies today operate in highly interconnected environments:
- Shared Projects
- Client Locations
- Hybrid Work
- Vendor Ecosystems
- External Consultants
- Cross-Functional Collaboration
Employees move across these environments every day. POSH processes have to keep up with that reality.
That is why many organizations are moving away from generic compliance presentations and investing in more practical POSH IC e-learning modules to keep their ICs updated on the latest happenings.
Why Scenario-Based POSH IC Training Works Better
One of the biggest problems with traditional POSH IC training is that IC members may remember definitions but struggle when real situations arise. Scenario-based online training for POSH IC usually works better because it mirrors situations the ICs may actually encounter at work. For IC members especially, practical exposure matters far more than theoretical slides.
POSH e-Learning module providers like XLPro are helping organizations build this kind of practical understanding through structured POSH IC e-learning modules focused on workplace scenarios, IC responsibilities, inquiry handling, and compliance processes.
The goal is not just awareness. It is helping IC members respond correctly when situations become difficult or sensitive.
Employers Cannot Stay Passive
Another important takeaway from the judgment is that organizations may still need to cooperate with an inquiry even when the complaint is being examined by another workplace’s IC.
In practical terms, employers may be expected to:
- Share Information
- Support the Inquiry Process
- Provide Records
- Participate in Disciplinary Action Where Required
This becomes difficult when HR teams themselves are unclear about procedures.
Which is why POSH preparedness today is no longer limited to having an IC committee on paper. Companies need trained IC members, informed managers, and employees who understand reporting processes properly.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court’s decision recognizes something that most workplaces already know: professional interactions no longer stay confined to one department or one employer. The POSH Act was created to protect employees in real working environments, and those environments have become far more interconnected than they were a decade ago.
For organizations, the lesson is straightforward. IC members need practical and continuous training on the latest judgements and various legal interpretations of the POSH Act. Because when a serious complaint arises, companies do not get judged by the policy document they uploaded to the intranet. They get judged by how competently and fairly the employer and the IC handle the situation.
