PoSH Law India Update - July '26 Edition

Dive into the key ruling and legal updates in the July '26 edition of PoSH Law India update.

1. State Human Rights Commission Cannot Entertain Workplace Harassment Complaints Against Private Employers: Telangana High Court

   
   

   In Wells Fargo International Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Telangana State Human Rights Commission & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 36488 of 2025), a woman employee approached the Telangana State Human Rights Commission after the Internal Committee (IC) of her private employer concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate her allegations of workplace sexual harassment. Dissatisfied with the outcome, she sought intervention from the Commission.

   
   

   Issue:

   The key issue before the Telangana High Court was whether the State Human Rights Commission had jurisdiction to entertain complaints against a private employer.

   
   

   Judgment:

   The Court held that under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission’s jurisdiction is confined to violations involving public servants and does not extend to private employers. Employees alleging workplace sexual harassment must pursue the remedies available under the PoSH Act, 2013.

2. Allahabad HC: IC Recommendations Under PoSH Act Are Binding on Employers

   
   

   In the case of Km. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of State Tax, Lucknow & Ors., 2026:AHC-LKO:26942, an Internal Committee (IC) constituted under the PoSH Act found a senior officer guilty of sexual harassment and submitted its report with recommendations. Instead of acting on the report, the employer suspended the IC members, questioning their findings.

   
   

   Issue:

   Whether an employer can disregard an IC’s findings under Section 13 of the PoSH Act and take disciplinary action against IC members for submitting such a report.

   
   

   Judgment:

   The Allahabad High Court held that an IC’s report and recommendations under Section 13 of the PoSH Act are binding and cannot be treated as mere advice. It quashed the suspension of the IC members, holding it to be arbitrary and unjustified. The Court further observed that an IC performs a quasi-judicial function and must be allowed to work independently, fairly, and without fear of retaliation or external influence.

3. Allahabad High Court Clarifies Delay in PoSH Complaints Cannot Be Sole Ground for Rejection

   
   

   In the case of Dr. Tapas Kumar Das v. Harish Chandra Research Institute & Ors. 2026:AHC:85796, a sexual harassment complaint was examined by the Internal Committee (IC), following which disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the proceedings, contending that the complaint was delayed and that the IC inquiry had not been conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

   
   

   Issue:

   Whether an IC can reject or proceed with a delayed sexual harassment complaint under the PoSH Act without examining the reasons for the delay, and whether an inquiry that does not follow the principles of natural justice is legally sustainable.

   
   

   Judgment:

   The Allahabad High Court held that a delay in filing a complaint cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject it without considering the reasons for the delay, particularly where trauma, fear, or workplace power dynamics may have prevented timely reporting. The Court also emphasized that ICC inquiries must adhere to the principles of natural justice by ensuring a fair opportunity to both parties. Finding procedural lapses in the inquiry, the Court set aside the ICC report and the consequential disciplinary action, directing the IC to reconsider the matter in accordance with the PoSH Act.

4. MP High Court: Compensation Under PoSH Cannot Be Awarded Before Appeal Is Decided

   
   

   In the case of Dr. Dilip Kumar Dureha v. Smt. Anusha Deepak Tyagi & Others (Writ Appeal No. 2332 of 2025), the former Vice-Chancellor of Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education challenged an order directing him to pay ₹35 lakh in compensation after the Internal Committee (IC) held him guilty of sexual harassment. However, he had already filed a statutory appeal under Section 18 of the PoSH Act, 2013, which was still pending.

   
   

   Issue:

   The main question before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was whether compensation could be awarded before that appeal was decided.

   
   

   Judgment:

   The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the right to appeal is an important legal safeguard and cannot be reduced to a mere formality. It set aside the compensation order, observing that the question of compensation should be decided only after the statutory appeal is finally heard and adjudicated. The Court reaffirmed that the right to appeal is a substantive legal right, and compensation cannot be determined until the appeal is finally adjudicated.

5. Pune Court Holds Setting Aside of IC Report Does Not, by Itself, Create Criminal Liability

   
   

   A former vice-principal challenged an Internal Committee (IC) report dated 3 October 2023 that held him guilty of sexual harassment. He claimed the complaint was false and alleged that the IC members acted with bias, illegally reconstituted the committee, leaked confidential documents, ignored favourable evidence and relied on hearsay. Although the appellate authority later set aside the IC report and held that the allegations were not proved, he sought registration of an FIR against the IC members under Section 175(3) BNSS.

   
   

   Issue: Whether setting aside an IC report and alleging procedural irregularities are sufficient grounds to direct registration of an FIR and criminal investigation against the IC members.

   
   

   Judgment: The Pune JMFC dismissed the complaint, holding that reversal of an IC report does not automatically establish criminal liability. The Court found no prima facie evidence of independent criminal acts by the IC members and observed that alleged procedural lapses or bias in a statutory inquiry may justify appellate interference but cannot, by themselves, warrant criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the request for investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS was rejected.

6. Government Reaffirms Commitment to Safe Workplaces for Women at National Conference

   
   

   The Ministry of Women and Child Development recently hosted the National Conference on Safety of Women at Workplace in New Delhi, reaffirming its commitment to strengthening the implementation of the PoSH Act, 2013. Speaking at the event, Union Minister Annapurna Devi highlighted the growing adoption of the SHe-Box portal, with an increasing number of workplaces registering on the platform to report and monitor sexual harassment complaints. She emphasized that creating safe and respectful workplaces is a key step towards achieving the vision of Viksit Bharat, where women can work with dignity, confidence, and equal opportunity.