The framework under which complaints can be resolved in the workplace is based on certain statutes and company service rules. Each of these have clearly defined limitations. In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court stated that an Internal Committee (IC) set up under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act cannot function as a disciplinary body. This judgment in Dr. Mohinder Kumar v. The Chairman, NABARD Head office & Anr., Writ Petition No. 1635 of 2021, decided on 12^th January 2026 is important to all legal professionals and employers as it highlights that statutory bodies must strictly operate within the scope of the statute.

Background of the Case

The facts of the case highlighted a real issue which often occurs within the corporate sector. The employee at NABARD had taken videos of female employees without their permission. He claimed that this was to prevent them from creating a nuisance by talking and singing in the workplace. These female employees felt their privacy was at risk and therefore decided to utilise the PoSH process.

The Central Complaints Committee investigated the matter and came to the correct and lawful conclusion that the actions of the employee were not sexual harassment as per the definition provided under Section 2(n) of the PoSH Act. However, they then went on to make a fatal mistake. They suggested that the employer should take disciplinary action against the employee due to their inappropriate actions. The employer followed this recommendation and issued a formal warning which contributed to the employee’s service record and led to them being forced into retirement. The employee challenged the recommendation and the consequential penalty before the Bombay High Court.

What did the Bombay High Court Decide?

We often encounter administrative bodies attempting to overreach their powers to pursue fairness in the workplace. The Division Bench composed of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande correctly ruled that this was overstepping their powers. They relied on Section 13(2) of the PoSH Act which states that: "If the allegations of sexual harassment are not proved by the IC, the IC shall recommend the employer to take no action".

An Internal Committee is a specialised body who have been given powers similar to those of a civil court. They have been given the power to resolve an issue relating to sexual harassment within the workplace. They do not have the power to enforce general workplace etiquette, deal with disobedience or penalise rude behaviour. If a statutory committee goes beyond the powers which have been given to them by Parliament, their recommendations will be null and void.

It is also important to note that the employer were criticised by the Court for their actions. NABARD punished the employee based on an incorrect recommendation from the IC. This meant that they did not follow the basic principles of natural justice and did not follow their service rules. Whilst an employee can be punished for general misconduct (such as taking videos of colleagues without permission), this must be investigated through a disciplinary process in accordance with the service rules of the company. This includes issuing a show cause notice and providing the employee with a fair opportunity to put forward their defence. An employer cannot utilise a rejected PoSH complaint as a way to avoid following the usual disciplinary process.

Not Every Workplace Misconduct is Sexual Harassment

This judgement highlights an important distinction under the PoSH Act.

An employee may have behaved inappropriately, bullied colleagues, violated workplace discipline or engaged in misconduct of some form. However not every situation will constitute sexual harassment.

The nature of the allegations and circumstances must be considered under section 2(n) of the Act.

If the behaviour does not constitute sexual harassment under the law then the Internal Committee of the company will not have jurisdiction over this issue. It is not to say that the employer should ignore this behaviour. They can investigate this under the service rules, disciplinary procedures and other guidelines in place. However, they must follow the correct procedure and afford employees a fair chance to answer.

Importance of this Judgement

This judgement is important to both the complainant and respondent in PoSH cases. 

For the Internal Committee, should remember that their power is limited to the extent of what is allowed under the legislation.

For the employer, must also remember that disciplinary action cannot be taken by following the recommendations of an IC when they have no jurisdiction over the issue.

For the respondent, it demonstrates how important a fair investigation is and that they will not face disciplinary action if the correct procedure is not followed.

For the complainant, there is nothing to worry about as they still have protections under the PoSH Act. Any genuine complaints will be investigated properly.

The Broader Legal Position

In Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa (2023) 1 SCC 632, the Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of ensuring a fair investigation under the PoSH Act.

The purpose of the legislation is to provide a safe working environment for women and ensure they have a proper way to deal with any sexual harassment. However, this must be done whilst respecting the rights of both parties. This judgment does not reduce the strong protection provided to women by the PoSH Act. Real sexual harassment complaints will still be investigated through a strict, empathetic and confidential process as required by the 2013 legislation. This judgment ensures that the PoSH process remains intact.

The Bombay High Court have reinforced this principle by ruling in favour of the NABARD case. This reminds employers and Internal Committees of the extent of powers they have under the legislation.

This judgment shows that general workplace issues should not be confused with sexual harassment. If there is misconduct which doesn’t fall under the scope of the PoSH Act, the Internal Committee must not get involved and instead the disciplinary process must be followed. A legally compliant workplace must have a zero tolerance approach to sexual harassment and follow strict processes of due process.

The PoSH Act is a specific piece of legislation created specifically to deal with the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. It does not aim to provide a general code of practice to resolve all disputes and punish all types of misconduct by employees in the workplace.

Internal Committees need to ensure they are within their scope of control however should also not be afraid to carry out their statutory obligations. Employers need to ensure the system is in place to deal with complaints and discipline in the workplace are working correctly.

A fair workplace needs to ensure there are protections in place against sexual harassment and also protection against unauthorised and improper action. Both of these factors are equally important in ensuring confidence in the justice system in the workplace.

(The author, a well-recognised lawyer and campaigner for female rights, has authored “Breaking the Silence: A Handbook on the PoSH Act”. She also holds a POCSO Train-the-Certificate.)