PoSH Law India Update - September '25 Edition

Dive into the key ruling and legal updates in the September '25 edition of PoSH Law India update.

1. Kerala HC: Written Complaint Mandatory, Labour Disputes and Hostile Work Environment Not Covered by PoSH Act

   In X v Abraham Mathai and Ors. (WA 1622/2025), the Kerala High Court clarified important limits of the PoSH Act, 2013. The Court held that proceedings cannot be initiated without a written complaint as required under Section 9. Oral statements or anonymous complaints are not sufficient. It further ruled that workplace disputes of a purely labour nature, including termination, denial of salary, or creation of a hostile environment without any sexual element, do not constitute “sexual harassment” under Section 2(n). The judgment also stressed that denying cross-examination in inquiries violates principles of natural justice.

   
   

2. Supreme Court Plea Challenges Kerala HC Verdict Restricting PoSH Act Coverage

   In Yogamaya MG v State of Kerala & Ors. (SLP, 2025), a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging a 2022 Kerala High Court judgment that limited the scope of the PoSH Act, 2013. The High Court had held that Internal Complaints Committees are mandatory only for individual film production units with more than 10 employees, excluded political parties from the Act, and directed women in small establishments to rely solely on Local Committees. The petition argues that this restrictive interpretation leaves women in cinema, media, and politics without effective redressal, despite broad definitions of “workplace” and “employee” in the Act and India’s obligations under the Vishaka guidelines and CEDAW. The plea seeks recognition of political parties and industry associations as employers under the Act and calls for sectoral redressal mechanisms to protect women across both formal and informal workspaces.

   
   

3. KEM Hospital POSH Committee Finds Senior Doctor Guilty of Harassment

   The Internal Committee at Mumbai’s KEM Hospital has found Dr. Ravindra Deokar, a professor of forensic medicine, guilty of sexual harassment following complaints by six women doctors. In its report dated August 18, 2025, the committee directed his immediate transfer from KEM until the complainants finish their academic year. He has also been barred from holding supervisory posts for five years, prohibited from serving as an examiner with MUHS, and ordered to vacate his on-campus accommodation.

   The case began in March when women doctors spoke out against persistent harassment and threats of academic retaliation. A formal police complaint followed, leading to Dr. Deokar’s suspension and arrest in May. While complainants welcomed the report as a partial relief, they stressed that strict implementation is essential and vowed to continue their fight in court.

   
   

4.  OHRC Takes Up Lapses in PoSH Implementation in Odisha’s Educational Institutions

   The Odisha Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has initiated proceedings over a complaint accusing educational institutions across the state of failing to implement the PoSH Act, 2013 effectively. The complaint, filed by activist Biswapriya Kanungo, cites malfunctioning Internal Committees (ICs) and non-compliance with UGC Regulations, 2015, in schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching centres. The OHRC has asked relevant departments to submit reports by November 18 and has flagged potential violations of students’ fundamental rights.

   
   

5. Supreme Court Upholds Kerala HC Ruling: Political Parties Not Covered by PoSH Act

   In Yogamaya v State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2011), the Supreme Court upheld a Kerala High Court judgment holding that political parties are not legally required to constitute Internal Complaints Committees under the PoSH Act, 2013. The Court reasoned that political parties lack an employer-employee relationship with their members and therefore do not fall within the statutory definition of a “workplace.” While organizations and establishments employing ten or more persons are obligated to form ICCs, political parties are exempt. The bench led by CJI BR Gavai dismissed the Special Leave Petition, affirming that bringing political parties within the scope of the Act is a matter for Parliament.

   
   

6. Supreme Court Issues Notice on Plea to Bring Bar Councils Under PoSH Act

   In Seema Joshi v Bar Council of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 805 of 2025), the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India and the Bar Council of India on a petition seeking to extend the PoSH Act, 2013 to women advocates practicing in courts and registered with State Bar Councils. The plea argues that Bar Councils and Bar Associations qualify as “workplaces” under Section 2(o) of the Act and must establish Internal Committees to hear complaints from women lawyers.

   The petition challenges the Bombay High Court’s July 2025 ruling in UNS Women Legal Association v Bar Council of India, which confined the Act’s coverage to employees of Bar Councils and Associations, excluding independent women advocates. The petitioner points to the PoSH Act’s broad definitions, earlier Supreme Court directions in Medha Kotwal Lele v Union of India (2013), and existing ICCs within the Delhi Bar Council and Bar Associations, contending that the High Court’s view creates a statutory vacuum. The matter is pending before a bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan.

   
   

7. Delhi HC Reinstates Woman Fired After Sexual Harassment Complaint Against Sahitya Akademi Secretary

   In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court quashed the termination of a probationary employee at the Sahitya Akademi who was dismissed after filing a sexual harassment complaint against the institution’s secretary. Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the February 2020 termination “reeked of mala fides” and was a retaliatory measure aimed at silencing the complainant, amounting to both malice in law and malice in fact.

   The Court ordered her reinstatement with continuity of service, full back wages, and all consequential benefits. It also set aside the Internal Complaints Committee’s ex parte report and directed the Local Complaints Committee to continue with the inquiry. Importantly, the Court ruled that the secretary qualified as an “employer” under the PoSH Act, making the LCC the proper forum. The judgment underscores that institutions like the Akademi bear a responsibility to exemplify safe and transparent workplaces, not undermine them.

   
   

8. Ramanujan College Principal Suspended After Harassment Complaint; He Denies Charges

   The principal of Ramanujan College under Delhi University, Prof. Rasal Singh, has been suspended following a harassment complaint filed by a faculty member.  The nature of the allegation suggests sexual harassment, though Singh has strongly denied the claim, calling it false and politically motivated.

   A fact-finding committee and a three-member governing body reviewed the complaint and found some merit, prompting the suspension as an interim measure to ensure a fair inquiry. So far, the complaint had been sent to the college’s governing body and DU’s vice-chancellor rather than through the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as required under PoSH / UGC rules.

   Meanwhile, a fact-finding panel constituted by the Vice Chancellor reportedly found a “substantial and sufficient case” to forward the allegations to Delhi University’s ICC. 

   
   

9. NUJS Kolkata: Supreme Court Bars Time-Barred PoSH Complaint, Orders VC to Record Judgment in Resume; Students Demand Resignation

   In Vaneeta Patnaik v Nirmal Kanti Chakrabarti & Ors. (2025), the Supreme Court dismissed a sexual harassment complaint against the Vice Chancellor of NUJS Kolkata as time-barred, reiterating that PoSH complaints must be filed within three months of the incident, extendable up to six months. The complaint, filed in December 2023 alleging incidents up to April 2023, was held to fall outside this statutory window.

   While upholding dismissal, the Court issued a striking directive: the judgment must be permanently included in the Vice Chancellor’s résumé so that the wrongdoing “haunts the wrongdoer forever.” The Court stressed that institutions like NUJS must exemplify safe workplaces and accountability.

   Following the order, NUJS students have staged protests across campus, demanding the VC’s resignation over both the PoSH allegations and alleged financial impropriety. Student statements accused the administration of silence and eroding trust, calling for transparency and accountability.

   
   

10. Delhi HC: Magistrates Not Bound by Closure Reports; Power Dynamics Continue to Fuel Workplace Harassment

    In Asif Hamid Khan v State & Anr., the Delhi High Court upheld a Magistrate’s decision to summon a senior government officer accused of workplace sexual harassment, despite the police filing two closure reports and an Internal Complaints Committee exonerating him. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that a Magistrate is not bound by a closure report and has the jurisdiction to independently assess the evidence. The Court clarified that departmental inquiries and criminal proceedings serve different purposes and that exoneration in one cannot preclude action in the other.

    Citing Shakespeare, Justice Krishna observed that while women’s right to equal opportunity at work is grudgingly recognised, harassment persists due to entrenched mindsets and power dynamics. She stressed that education or high government office does not shield women from harassment, and praised the complainant’s courage in pursuing the matter despite repeated closure reports. The Court concluded that credible testimony from the complainant, even without corroboration, may suffice to proceed under Sections 354A and 509 IPC.