PoSH Law India Update - September '26 Edition
Dive into the key ruling and legal updates in the September '26 edition of PoSH Law India update.
Bombay HC: Shared Autorickshaw Not a “Workplace” Under PoSH Act, 2013
In Siddhesh Pradeep Satpute v. State Bank of India & Ors., W.P. No. 1213/2024, decided by the Bombay High Court on 16 June 2026, the petitioner, an employee of the State Bank of India, travelled from Navi Mumbai to his workplace at Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC). From Kurla railway station, he traveled to BKC in a shared autorickshaw. An incident occurred during one such journey involving a woman who worked at another company. She first complained to the IC of her company, which forwarded the complaint to SBI's Internal Committee (IC). The IC conducted an inquiry, found him guilty of sexual harassment, and recommended action under the Service Rules.
Issue:
The issue before the Court was whether a shared autorickshaw used by an employee to travel to work, when the transportation was not provided by the employer, fell within the statutory definition of “workplace” under Section 2(o)(v) of the PoSH Act, 2013
Judgment:
The Court held that, for transportation to fall within Section 2(o)(v), it must be provided by the employer. Since the shared autorickshaw had not been provided by either the petitioner's employer or the complainant's employer, the transportation did not fall within the statutory definition of “workplace”. The Court therefore held that the Internal Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and set aside its order. The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of whether sexual harassment had actually occurred during the journey.
In Ashok Upadhyay, Senior Manager v. Union Bank of India & Ors., W.P. No. 2385/2024, decided by the Bombay High Court on 12 August 2026, the petitioner had initially been exonerated by the Internal Committee following a sexual-harassment complaint. Subsequently, an Appellate Authority constituted by the bank reopened the matter and ordered a fresh inquiry. A second Committee conducted the inquiry and made a recommendation against the petitioner, following which a penalty was imposed. The petitioner challenged the disciplinary and appellate orders before the High Court.
Issue:
The principal issue was whether the appellate authority constituted by the bank had jurisdiction under Section 18 of the PoSH Act, 2013 read with Rule 11 of the PoSH Rules, 2013 to entertain the appeal and order a fresh inquiry.
Judgment:
The Court held that Section 18 of the PoSH Act, 2013 read with Rule 11 of the PoSH Rules, 2013 did not confer jurisdiction on an employer to create or constitute an Appellate Authority of its own choice. The Appellate Authority constituted by the bank therefore did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or order a fresh inquiry. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not been given notice or an opportunity to participate before the fresh inquiry was ordered. Since the subsequent proceedings and penalty flowed from the order of an authority without jurisdiction, the Court quashed and set aside the disciplinary and the appellate orders which confirmed the penalty.
Can an Improperly Constituted ICC Conduct a Valid Inquiry? Chhattisgarh HC Examines PoSH Proceedings
In Jageshwari Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., WPC No. 2224/2022, decided by the Chhattisgarh High Court on 9 September 2026, the petitioner, a Steno-Typist with the Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, complained of workplace harassment by a General Manager. An Internal Committee was constituted to inquire into the complaint. The petitioner challenged the constitution of the Committee, contending that it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the PoSH Act, 2013 as its members were subordinate in rank to the General Manager and that the Internal Committee did not satisfy the statutory requirement regarding a senior-level woman member.
Issue:
The issue before the Court was whether the Internal Committee had been constituted in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 4(2) of the PoSH Act, 2013, and whether an inquiry conducted by an improperly constituted Internal Committee could be sustained.
Judgment:
The Court held that the Internal Committee had not been constituted in conformity with Section 4(2) of the PoSH Act, 2013. It held that where the constitution of the Committee itself is defective, the inquiry conducted by it is devoid of jurisdiction and cannot be treated as a valid statutory inquiry. The Court therefore set aside the inquiry and the report submitted by the Internal Committee and directed the authorities to constitute a fresh Internal Committee in accordance with Section 4(2) of the PoSH Act, 2013 and conduct the inquiry afresh.
Natural Justice Applies to PoSH Appeals: Allahabad HC Quashes Order Passed Without Hearing
In Hari Narayan v. Union Bank of India through its Managing Director & CEO & Ors., Writ-A No. 8800/2026, decided by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, on 16 September 2026, a complaint concerning the petitioner's conduct was considered by the bank's Internal Committee (IC) under the PoSH Act, 2013. The IC made its recommendation against him on 5 August 2025. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the IC's order by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the PoSH Act, 2013 read with Rule 10 of the Memorandum applicable to his service, but the appeal was dismissed on 13 November 2025. He subsequently approached the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, Central, Kanpur, but that appeal was dismissed on 13 August 2026 for want of jurisdiction.
Issue:
The issue was whether the petitioner's appeal under Section 18 could be dismissed without affording him an opportunity of hearing, despite the PoSH Act, 2013 and the PoSH Rules, 2013 not expressly prescribing a hearing procedure for such an appeal.
Judgement:
The Court held that, even in the absence of an express provision prescribing a hearing, principles of natural justice are implicit in the statutory appellate process. Since the appeal had been dismissed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, the Court held that the appellate order dated 13 November 2025 violated the principles of natural justice. It therefore quashed the appellate order and directed the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
The case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Lala Mir & Ors., WP.ST/250/2025 involved a contractual Data Entry Operator at the Central Investigation Department (CID), West Bengal, who alleged that a Deputy Superintendent of Police had inappropriately touched her back and waist between September 2021 and July 2022. She filed a complaint before the Internal Committee (IC) on 5 January 2023, stating that fear of encountering the officer again had prevented her from complaining earlier. The IC upheld her allegations, but the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal set aside its report on the ground that the complaint was time-barred.
Issue:
The issue before the Calcutta High Court was whether a complainant’s apprehension or fear of facing sexual harassment again, in the absence of any subsequent act of harassment, could constitute a fresh incident for computing the three-month limitation period under Section 9 of the PoSH Act, 2013.
Judgement:
The Calcutta High Court on 31 August 2026 upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The Court clarified that apprehension of future harassment does not, by itself, constitute a fresh incident of sexual harassment or reset the limitation period. It distinguished actual conduct under Sections 2(n) and 3(2) of the PoSH Act, 2013 from subjective fear of future harassment.
In Seema Joshi v. Bar Council of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 805/2025, the Supreme Court considered a framework for addressing sexual harassment complaints involving women lawyers. The Court has observed that the PoSH Act, 2013 cannot be applied to women in the legal profession in a “straitjacket” manner, particularly given that women advocates may not have a conventional employer-employee relationship with the forum before which they practise.
Issue:
The Supreme Court addressed the need for an appropriate mechanism to redress sexual-harassment complaints involving women lawyers across judicial and quasi-judicial forums, including courts, tribunals and other authorities.
Latest Development:
On 18 September 2026, the Supreme Court requested counsel for the respective parties to undertake a joint consultation to draft regulations for this purpose. The Court further requested the Bar Council of India to ascertain from State Bar Councils whether any existing regulations are being implemented in this regard. The matter was listed for 25 November 2026. The proposed regulations have therefore not yet been finally framed, and the proceedings remain ongoing.
Comments