PoSH Law India Update - August '26 Edition
Dive into the key ruling and legal updates in the August '26 edition of PoSH Law India update.
Karnataka HC: 'Wolf in White Coat' Must Face Disciplinary Action for Sexual Harassment
In the case of Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences v. State of Karnataka & Ors., W.A. No. 675/2026 c/w W.P. No. 35404/2025 & W.P. No. 15057/2026, decided on 4 August 2026, Dr. Ashwin Hebbar, Associate Professor at Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences (SIMS), faced allegations of sexually harassing two female students. In one incident, a student alleged inappropriate touching, following which an FIR was registered and a Local Committee found a prima facie case of sexual harassment. Despite the allegations, his suspension was later revoked and he was transferred to Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences.
Issue:
The key issue before the Karnataka High Court was whether his transfer could be challenged merely because the required Governing Council approvals were initially absent, and whether he could be reinstated while disciplinary proceedings were pending.
Judgment:
The Court held that procedural technicalities concerning the transfer could not override the safety, dignity and well-being of the students. It restored his suspension until completion of the disciplinary inquiry and directed that he remain attached to Haveri. The Court strongly criticised the authorities for protecting the accused and observed that Dr. Hebbar was a “wolf in white coat”, directing that he be proceeded against expeditiously and that the National Medical Commission consider appropriate action, including cancellation of his medical licence if he is found guilty. The Court also directed disciplinary action against officials who had protected him.
Delhi Court Acquits Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in Women Wrestlers’ Sexual Harassment Case
Former WFI President Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh faced allegations of sexual harassment, molestation, stalking and criminal intimidation by women wrestlers, concerning incidents allegedly occurring between 2016–2019. The Delhi Police chargesheet invoked Sections 354, 354A, 354D and 506(Part-I) IPC against Singh, with Section 109 IPC additionally invoked against Vinod Tomar.
Issue:
Whether the prosecution had proved the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment:
The Rouse Avenue Court acquitted Singh and Tomar, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court relied on prolonged silence and absence of contemporaneous complaints or disclosures, continued cordial relations with Singh, material contradictions in dates, places and tournament records, substantial improvements in testimony, and lack of independent corroboration. Two complainants also turned hostile, alleging pressure to make statements. The Court found some allegations appeared “rehearsed and well practised” and held that the cumulative circumstances created reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Marital Discord or Workplace Sexual Harassment? Allahabad HC Examines PoSH Proceedings Against Husband
The case arose from a workplace dispute between a husband and wife who were employed in the same office. The wife alleged that her husband made foul and derogatory remarks against her at the workplace. The matter was examined by the Internal Committee, which found the husband guilty under Section 2(n)(v) of the PoSH Act, relating to unwelcome verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature, and recommended disciplinary action against him. The husband challenged the Internal Committee’s findings as well as the subsequent charge-sheet before the Allahabad High Court, contending that the allegations were rooted in their matrimonial discord rather than workplace sexual harassment.
Issue:
The key issue before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Writ No. 6120 of 2026, was whether a dispute essentially arising from marital discord could be brought within the ambit of the PoSH Act merely because the parties were colleagues.
Judgment:
Justice Pankaj Bhatia, on 10 August 2026, observed that the PoSH Act serves a distinct statutory purpose and questioned its applicability to essentially matrimonial disputes. The Court stayed the disciplinary proceedings pending further consideration, while leaving the issue of maintainability open for a final determination.
Maharashtra Tightens PoSH Enforcement: 83 Establishments Face Show-Cause Notices
Maharashtra has intensified enforcement of the PoSH Act, 2013, with 83 establishments in Mumbai City issued show-cause notices for non-compliance. The state-wide inspection drive, launched in June 2026, has so far covered 6,875 establishments, including 3,579 government offices and 3,296 private companies, with more than 4,000 inspection officers deployed across the state.
Authorities are checking whether establishments have complied with key statutory requirements, including registration on the SHe-Box portal, constitution and registration of Internal Committees, regular PoSH training, submission of annual reports and maintenance of compliance records. Establishments found deficient have been directed to rectify the violations within the stipulated period.
The action signals a stronger enforcement approach towards workplace safety and PoSH compliance in Maharashtra. Failure to comply may attract penalties of up to ₹50,000, reinforcing that PoSH compliance is a statutory obligation rather than merely an organisational best practice.
Bombay High Court: IC Cannot Reject Sexual Harassment Complaint Without Inquiry
In Anup Vikal v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 7430 of 2026, along with connected petitions, the former General Counsel of Maple Infra InvIT filed a sexual harassment complaint against senior officials before the IC on her last working day. The IC rejected it at the threshold, holding that the allegations lacked a sexual element and did not warrant an inquiry. The employee challenged the decision under Section 18 of the PoSH Act. The Industrial Court held the appeal maintainable, set aside the IC’s decision, and directed a fresh inquiry.
Issue:
Whether an IC’s decision to reject a complaint at the threshold on the ground that it does not disclose sexual harassment can be treated as a “recommendation” under Section 13 and appealed under Section 18 of the PoSH Act.
Judgement held:
The complainant challenged the decision before the Industrial Court, which held her appeal maintainable and directed a fresh inquiry. Before the High Court, Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that Section 11(1) uses the word “shall”, making an inquiry mandatory once a complaint is received. The Court further held that even a threshold rejection constitutes a “recommendation” under Section 13(2) and is therefore appealable under Section 18 of the PoSH Act, 2013. However, the High Court set aside the Industrial Court’s merits decision and remanded the appeal for fresh adjudication, leaving all questions on merits open.
Comments